4-."E>62 


IFrom  tijp  ICibrarg  of 

l^tumutl^sh  fay  lytm  tn 
tlyp  Slihrarg  nf 


I  ^y^  J 


Warfidd  Library   '- 

THE  PRESBYTERIAN 
AND   REFORMED    REVIEW 


No.  21— January,  1895. 


Edwi-n   Coii^-'' 


~ij  \  DO^  1  I 


ORIGIN  AJSTD  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS. 

HISTORY  OF   THE   CRITICISM   TO   THE   RISE  OF  THE 
GRAFIAN  HYPOTHESIS. 

THE  first  book  of  the  Bible,  perhaps  equally  with  the  last,  de- 
serves the  title  of  Revelation.  The  revelation  of  the  past  alone 
furnishes  the  key  to  that  of  the  future.  Genesis  is  second  to  no 
book  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its  announcement  of  great  truths. 
These  truths  are  confessedly  fundamental ;  hence  the  book  itself  is 
fundamental.  During  the  last  century  and  a  half  critics  have  been 
busy  with  it,  as  with  other  books  of  the  Bible.  They  have  started 
concerning  it  many  questions  which  perhaps  will  long  await  an  an- 
swer. At  the  same  time,  continuous  and  brilliant  discoveries  in 
the  sphere  of  Biblical  science  are  quickening  the  hope  that  the  fas- 
cinating problem  of  the  origin  of  Genesis  in  history  is  approaching 
a  solution. 

The  true  point  of  view  in  investigating  the  subject  should  be  the 
scientific.  By  this  we  do  not  mean  that,  for  the  time,  we  should 
lay  aside  our  faith  in  Christ  or  denude  ourselves  of  every  prepos- 
session. Clearly  that  would  be  impossible,  were  it  desirable.  We 
simply  mean  that  we  should  make  an  honest,  and,  as  far  as  the  cir- 
cumstances will  permit,  a  thorough  study  of  the  facts  involved,  and 
let  the  facts  determine  the  conclusions  reached.  This  might  seem, 
perhaps,  an  unnecessary  statement  or  at  least  a  matter  best  assumed 
and  left  unsaid.  Under  some  conditions  this  would  be  true  ;  but  so 
many  assumptions  enter  into  the  critic's  work,  and  the  result  is 
such  a  variety  of  types  of  criticism,  that  it  has  become  customary 
1 


2  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

to  define  one's  point  of  view  at  the  very  outset  of  such  an  investi- 
gation. 

Kuenen  begins  his  treatise  on  the  Religion  of  Israel*  with  an 
introduction  on  "our  standpoint "  and  "  our  sources."  His  stand- 
point, in  substance,  is  that  Israel's  religion  is  one  of  the  principal 
religions  of  the  world,  "  nothing  less,  but  also  nothing  more."  He 
admits  that  it  purports  to  be  something  more  ;  that  its  sacred  books 
are  unanimous  in  claiming  divine  origin.  But  the  same  is  true,  he 
says,  of  Islam  and  Buddhism.  No  one  expects  the  investigator  of 
the  latter  religions  to  start  with  that  belief;  why  do  so  then  in  the 
case  of  the  former  ?  Hence  he  sets  out  with  the  fixed  rule  that  the 
whole  class  of  passages  presupposing  the  supernatural  origin  of  Is- 
rael's religion  are  to  be  ignored.  They  do  not  concern  the  object  he 
has  in  view.  Kuenen  contracts  still  more  the  limits  of  his  pro- 
posed research.  The  Bible,  he  says,  contains  "  a  concatenated  his- 
tory of  Israel's  fortunes  from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  second 
half  of  the  fifth  century  B.C."  What  are  we  to  make  of  it  ?  Can 
we  use  the  Old  Testament  accounts  of  the  history  of  Israel  as  a 
foundation  for  our  review  of  its  religious  development?  Can  they 
serve  us  for  a  frame  into  which  to  fit,  each  in  its  place,  the  memo- 
rials which  have  been  preserved  to  us  elsewhere — in  the  prophetic 
and  poetical  books?  "This  is  the  way,"  he  remarks,  "in  which 
the  history  of  Israel  and  of  Israel's  religion  was  formerly  written. 
Are  we  at  liberty  to  go  on  this  method?  Our  answer  must  be  in 
the  negative.  We  must  strike  out  a  path  for  ourselves."  Some  of 
the  reasons  given  by  our  frank  critic  for  this  remarkable  course  Ave 
will  simply  name,  with  no  attempt  here  to  test  their  weight.  They 
are  such  as  these  :  The  narratives  of  Israel's  earliest  history  "  pre- 
sent all  sorts  of  phenomena  which  forbid  us  to  recognize  them  as 
historical."  They  did  not  proceed  from  contemporaries,  but  were 
written  centuries  after  the  events  of  which  they  treat.  We  have 
contradictory  accounts  of  the  same  event.  Sometimes  we  shall 
find  ourselves  at  liberty  to  sacrifice  one  account  to  the  other.  "  But 
very  frequently  ....  we  can  accept  neither  of  the  accounts  as 
trustworthy ;"  their  only  difference  being  in  the  fact  that  one  is 
further  from  the  truth  than  the  other.  The  representation  concern- 
ing Israel  "  presented  to  us  in  the  books  named  after  Moses  and 
Joshua  must  be  rejected  as  in  its  entirety  impossible."  Their  prin- 
cipal element  is  legend.  "  Independently  of  the  question  whether  the 
Israelites  were  fed  with  manna  and  quails,  the  account  of  their  forty 
years'  wandering  through  the  peninsula  of  Sinai  must  be  put  aside 
as  unhistorical."  "  To  be  acknowledged  as  real  every  fact  must  fit 
into  its  place  in  the  historic  connection^     By  this  Kuenen  means 

*  London,  1874. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  3 

the  critic's  conception  of  the  connection,  not  that  of  the  historian. 
■"We  shall  often  have  to  admit,"  he  adds,  "that  the  connection  of 
occurrences  can  be  established  in  more  than  one  way,  but  we  shall 
frequently  arrive  in  any  case  at  this  position :  Such  and  such  cannot 
have  been  the  sequence  of  the  facts."  "  Of  course,  the  narratives  are 
what  we  must  start  from.  How  far  soever  they  may  be  removed 
from  the  historical  truth,  we  can  deduce  from  them  the  whole  or 
a  part  of  that  truth,  if  we  only  know  and  observe  what  meta- 
morphoses it  must  have  undergone  before  it  assumed  the  shape  it 
presents  in  the  narratives."  Not  a  little  is  usually  wanting,  how- 
ever, to  our  knowledge  of  those  metamorphoses.  The  historical 
image  which  we  frame  (with  the  best  of  material)  is,  to  no  small 
extent,  the  result  of  our  own  personality,  and  therefore  the  picture 
hung  up  by  one  historian  will  never  entirely  agree  with  that  of  an- 
other. How  much  greater  becomes  the  influence  of  these  personal 
peculiarities  when  (as  is  the  case  with  the  Bible)  the  historical  docu- 
ments are  few  in  number  and  cannot  possibly  be  taken  as  they 
stand  1  Still,  he  thinks,  "  we  are  never  left  altogether  without  a  test 
for  the  results  which  we  have  obtained.  Our  representation  of  the 
historical  reality  may  have  been  formed  from  conjecture  ;  neverthe- 
less it  remains  susceptible  of  control.  It  has  been  made  up  from 
the  narratives ;  the  proof  of  its  truth  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  explains 
in  its  turn  the  origin  of  those  narratives ;"  that  is,  of  course,  that  it 
explains  them  in  a  way  satisfactory  to  the  critic. 

These  are  the  wide-reaching  assumptions  with  which  Kuenen 
begins  his  history  of  Israel.  We  admire  the  frankness  and  clearness 
with  which  they  are  stated,  and  we  make  no  apology  for  citing  them 
at  length.  Other  critics  who  have  the  same  general  standpoint 
are  much  more  reserved  in  speaking  of  their  mode  of  treating  Bib- 
lical history.  But  it  is  easy  to  see  that,  in  substance,  it  is  one  with 
his.  Prof.  Driver,*  for  example,  says,  though  in  a  footnote :  "  Two 
principles,  once  recognized,  will  be  found  to  solve  nearly  all  the  diffi- 
culties which,  upon  the  traditional  view  of  the  historical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  are  insuperable,  viz.:  (1)  That  in  many  parts  of 
these  books  we  have  before  us  traditions,  in  which  the  original  rep- 
resentation has  been  insensibly  modified,  and  sometimes  (especially 
in  the  later  books)  colored  by  the  associations  of  the  age  in  which 
the  author  recording  it  lived ;  (2)  that  some  freedom  was  used  by 
the  ancient  historians  in  placing  speeches  or  discourses  in  the 
mouths  of  historical  characters.  In  some  cases,  no  doubt,  such 
speeches  agreed  substantially  with  what  was  actually  said  ;  but 
often  they  merely  develop  at  length,  in  the  style  and  manner  of  the 
narrator,  what  was  handed  down  only  as  a  compendious  report,  or 

*  Introduction,  p.  xiii. 


4  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

what  was  deemed  to  be  consonant  with  the  temper  and  aim  of 
a  given  character  on  a  particular  occasion.  No  satisfactory  con- 
clusions with  respect  to  the  Old  Testament  will  be  arrived  at 
without  due  account  being  taken  of  these  two  principles."*  Our 
own  conviction  is  that  no  really  satisfactory  and  lasting  conclu- 
sions can  be  reached  with  them.  That  is  the  radical  difference 
between  the  two  standpoints ;  and  that  is  the  reason  why  in  inqui- 
ries of  this  sort  it  is  so  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  clear  under- 
standing at  the  start  what  one's  position  is  with  respect  to  them. 
Even  so  much  of  an  idealist  as  Hegel  had  quite  another  conception 
from  Kuenen  and  Driver  of  the  sphere  of  the  historical  critic  and 
wrote  with  some  warmth:  "Among  us  the  so-called  'higher  criti- 
cism '  which  remains  supreme  in  the  domain  of  philology  has  also 
taken  possession  of  our  historical  literature.  This  '  higher  criti- 
cism '  has  been  made  the  pretext  for  introducing  all  the  anti-histor- 
ical monstrosities  that  a  vain  imagination  could  suggest.  Here  we 
have  the  other  method  of  making  the  past  a  living  reality  :  putting 
subjective  fancies  in  the  place  of  historical  data,  fancies  whose 
merit  is  measured  by  their  boldness ;  that  is  the  scantiness  of  the 
particulars  on  which  they  are  based,  and  the  peremptoriness  with 
which  they  contravene  the  established  facts  of  history."f 

The  terms  "  scientific  "  and  "  historic,"  it  is  evident,  are  used  in 
widely  different  senses,  in  our  day,  by  parties  to  the  same  debate. 
We  mean  by  a  scientific  examination  of  the  origin  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  first,  a  careful  ascertainment  of  all  the  facts  it  contains; 
and,  second,  a  correct,  that  is  to  say,  a  strictly  logical,  method  of 

*The  view  lield  by  Hermann  Schultz  {Old  Testament  Theology,  i,  pp.  17-31, 
passim),  like  that  of  Driver,  is  but  a  modification  of  Kuenen's.  He  says  that 
the  "  stories  about  pre-Mosaic  times  are  authorities  as  to  religion  as  it  was  in  the 
age  of  their  authors."  The  Holy  Spirit  "does  not  render  impossible  forms  of 
presentation  which  may  not  appear  to  us  quite  permissible,  but  which  were, 
nevertheless,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  view  of  the  period  in  question,  as, 
for  example,  history  written  with  a  purpose  (Tendenzgeschichte)  and  pseudonym- 
ity.  For  it  is  only  the  moral  standard  actually  in  force  at  the  time  that  can  be 
taken  into  consideration."  The  Holy  Spirit  "  does  not  exclude  error  or  ignorance 
regarding  matters  of  fact."  It  "illumines  the  moral  and  religious  life."  "Of 
the  legendary  character  of  the  pre-Mosaic  narratives,  the  time  of  which  they 
treat  is  a  sufficient  proof."  It  is  also  "indicated  by  their  disregarding  historical 
probability,  and  by  the  easy  tolerance  of  contradictions  in  many  passages  of 
Genesis  which,  nevertheless,  retain  to  the  full  their  evidential  value  in  spite  of 
the  ridicule  which  infidelity  has  frequently  cast  upon  them."  "The  first  three 
chapters  of  it  (Genesis),  in  particular,  present  us  with  revelation-myths  of  the 
most  important  kind,  and  the  following  eight,  with  mythical  elements  that  have 
been  recast  more  in  the  form  of  legend.  From  Abraham  to  Moses  we  have 
national  legend  pure  and  simple,  mixed  with  a  variety  of  mythical  elements 
which  have  become  almost  unrecognizable." 

\Philosop7iy  of  History,  trans,  by  Sibree,  in  Bohn's  Lib.  (London,  1892), 
pp.  7  and  8. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  » 

deducing  conclusions  from  them.  Bj  facts  "we  mean  the  statements 
of  occurrences  as  found  in  the  narrative,  judged  by  the  ordinary 
rules  of  language  and  subject  to  the  modifications  called  for  by  dif- 
ferent species  of  literature.  In  other  words,  we  accept,  until  clearly 
disproved,  the  absolute  veracity  of  the  narrator.  This  seems  to  be 
a  necessary  condition  to  any  proper  historical  or  critical  estimate  of 
his  work.  We  do  not  feel  at  liberty,  with  Kuenen,  to  strike  out  a 
path  for  ourselves ;  to  say  that  "  such  and  such  cannot  have  been 
the  sequence  of  the  facts." 

We  are  equally  loth  to  assume,  with  Driver,  that  the  account 
has  been  "  insensibly  modified  "  and  freedom  used  in  putting  lan- 
guage into  the  mouths  of  historical  characters.  For,  first  of  all,  we 
regard  this  method  as  unscientific.  Too  much  room  is  left  for  the 
play  of  mere  apriorisms.  We  cannot  see  how  wholly  just  results 
are  possible  by  it.  Certainly  they  will  have  none  of  the  stringency 
or  claim  to  universal  acceptance  that  attaches  to  strictly  logical 
reasoning.  Does  not  Kuenen  himself  in  substance  acknowledge 
this  when  he  says  that  the  historical  image  which  we  frame  by  it  is 
"  to  no  small  extent,  the  result  of  our  own  personality,"  and  that 
here,  where  the  documents  "  cannot  possibly  be  taken  as  they  stand," 
the  influence  of  one's  personal  peculiarities  reaches  its  maximum  ?  * 
It  is  true,  if  certain  critics  are  agreed  upon  a  theory  and  proceed  to 
adjust  the  record  to  it,  every  fact  being  made  to  fit  into  its  place  in 
the  assumed  historic  connection,  that  a  general  consensus  concerning 
it  among  these  critics  may  no  doubt  be  achieved.  But  the  proba- 
bility of  its  being  upset  by  the  starting  of  another  theory  is  always 
imminent.  Nothing  is  more  common  than  a  change  in  one's  his- 
torical or  philosophical  standpoint.  That  is  all  that  would  be  need- 
ful. It  would  be  otherwise  were  the  basis  of  agreement  objective 
like  the  credibility  of  a  narrative. 

Prof.  Driver,  be  it  observed,  does  not  fail  to  see  the  possibility  of 
evil  consequences  resulting  from  the  method  he  adopts  if  appHed  to 
historical  narratives  generally,  even  to  those  of  the  Bible.  Those 
who  might  fear  that  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  faith  would 
be  imperilled  by  it,  he  assures  of  the  contrary.  "  The  records  of 
the  New  Testament,"  he  says,  "  were  produced  under  very  different 
historical  conditions."  "  While  in  the  Old  Testament,  for  example, 
there  are  instances  in  which  we  can  have  no  assurance  that  an  event 
was  recorded  until  many  centuries  after  its  occurrence,  in  the  New 
Testament  the  interval  at  most  is  not  more  than  thirty  to  fifty 
years." 

*  "Es  ist  wahr,  dass,  wie  Ranke  sagt,  nur  die  kritisch  erforscUte  Geschichte 
gelten  kann.  Aber,  wenn  die  Geschichte  kritisch  vernichtet  wird,  was  bleibt  da 
iibrig  als  die  Fiillung  der  tabula  rasa  mit  modernen  Mythen  ?  "— Delitzsch,  Com. 
uber  Genesis  (1887),  p.  6. 


6  2  HE  PRE  SB  JTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  R  E  VIE  W. 

That  is  not  the  apparent  hope  and  expectation,  however,  of  man j 
of  Prof.  Driver's  distinguished  colleagues  on  the  continent  of 
Europe  ;  and  it  just  as  little  harmonizes  with  actual  results  to  date. 
The  popular  and  growing  opinion,  if  it  be  not  yet  the  prevailing 
one  there,  is  rather  of  the  sort  represented  in  a  recent  periodical : — 

"  We  can  know,  not  what  Christ  and  His  work  in  themselves  are, 
but  only  what  they  are  worth  to  us.  The  seat  and  source  of 
authority  are  not  the  Scriptures  as  such,  but  the  convictions  and 
certainty  aroused  through  them  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men.  It 
is  accordingly  possible  to  hold  the  most  radical  views  in  regard  to 
the  origin,  character  and  history  of  the  Biblical  books  without 
thereby  endangering  their  religious  worth.  Thus  in  the  recent 
controversy  on  the  Apostles'  Creed  the  representatives  of  the  new 
views  assembled  at  Eisenach  offici§.lly  declared  that  the  much 
discussed,  '  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,^ 
i.  e.,  the  supernatural  and  preexisting  character  of  Christ  does  not 
belong  to  the  fundamentals  of  the  Christian  system. 

"  This  is  what  this  same  class  of  theologians  mean  by  their  '  his- 
torical Christ,'  who  is  placed  in  the  centre  of  their  system.  It  is 
Christ,  not  the  eternal  equal  of  the  Father,  but  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary  endowed  with  rich  gifts  and  abilities  as  a  religious  teacher 
of  men.  In  this  way  the  old  theological  termini  technici  acquire 
quite  a  different  significance  in  the  hand  of  this  school,  and  Luthardt 
is  doubtless  correct  when  he  attributes  to  it  as  a  fundamental  error 
the  entwertung  of  Christian  doctrine,  that  is,  depriving  the  teachings 
of  Christianity  of  their  objective  basis."* 

Let  it  be  carefully  noted  that  it  is  not  on  dogmatic  or  religious 
grounds  at  all  that  we  here  call  attention  to  the  disastrous  conse- 
quences of  adopting  the  modern  critical  method  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, although,  as  Driver  intimates,  it  might  be  a  perfectly  legiti- 
mate argument  to  ply  in  certain  circumstances.  We  adduce  its  use 
and  results  there  rather  as  further  evidence  of  its  unscientific  char- 
acter ;  to  show  that  it  has  less  to  do  with  the  nature  of  the  material 
with  which  it  deals,  whether  it  be  Genesis  or  the  Gospels,  Homer 
or  Paul,  than  with  the  hypothesis  involved  and  a  certain  peculiar 
way  of  getting  it  established  and  approved.  It  certainly  argues  a 
low  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  Bible  to  set  any  mere  theory  of 
its  origin  and  structure  above  its  credibility  :  to  be  willing  to  sub- 
stantiate the  former  at  the  expense  of  the  latter.f 

*See  The  (N.  Y.)  Independent,  May  11,  1893,  p.  16. 

\  Cf.  Kurtz,  Die  Einheit  der  Genesis  (1846),  p.  xix  :  "  So  lange  die  destructive 
Kritik  das  Judenthum  als  rein  natiirlichen  Entwicklungsfortschritt  ansieht,  so 
lange  sie  Wunder  und  Weissaguagen,  Gotteserscheinungen  und  dgl.  fiir  reiu 
uninoglich  halt  verzichten  wir  darauf,  alls  einzelnen  ErscLeinungen  des  alten 
Test,  mit  diesem  ihrem  Standpunkte  in  cine  ihr  geniigende  Uebereinstimmung 


OMIQIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  7 

For  our  own  part,  we  choose  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  true  his- 
torical method  over  against  a  palpably  false  one.  It  will,  at  least 
enable  us  to  secure  a  complete  collection  of  the  facts,  and  a  thor. 
oughly  logical  induction  from  them.  Accordingly,  until  the  con- 
trary shall  be  found  true  through  the  clearest  evidence,  we  shall 
assume,  as  in  the  case  of  any  other  book,  that  the  record  of  Genesis 
has  been  honestly  made.  We  have  no  prejudgments  against  super- 
naturalism  in  the  Bible,  or  against  the  view  that  one  religion  might 
be  essentially  different  from  every  other.  We  are  not  conscious  of 
being  unfitted  for  Biblical  criticism  by  implicit  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Quite  the  contrary.  He  is  the  supreme  Master  of  truth  and 
every  servant  of  His  is,  first  of  all,  a  servant  of  truth  in  its  broadest 
sense.  We  deny  the  competency  of  any  man  to  say  that  as 
"  believers  "  we  cannot  be  fair-minded  critics.  Unbelieving  critics, 
it  is  true,  we  cannot  be.  We  claim  that  the  whole  spirit  of  the 
Bible  is  against  sophistical  reasoning,  even  though  it  may  be 
brought  to  its  own  defense ;  yes,  especially  then.  It  disowns 
beforehand  the  apologetic  which  does  not  square  with  the  rules 
of  logic.  We  believe  that  candor  and  humility,  united  with 
earnest  prayer  to  God  for  light  and  guidance,  are  necessary  con- 
ditions to  the  highest  success  in  Biblical  investigation  as  well  as 
in  every  other  undertaking.  This,  in  brief,  is  our  point  of  view, 
our  working  platform.  It  seems  to  us  to  offer  the  broadest  and 
fairest  possible  basis  for  the  work  in  hand.  It  provides  for 
taking  due  account  of  what  other  critics  of  every  school  have 
done ;  it  leaves  us  free,  consequences  apart,  for  the  widest  con- 
ceivable deductions  that  are  in  harmony  with  the  phenomena  of 
our  book. 

Even  in  the  seventeenth  century  and  earlier,  as  is  well-known , 
critical  excursions  began  to  be  made  into  the  book  of  Genesis.  On 
the  people  of  that  time  they  had  little  or  no  influence.  They  are 
chiefly  valuable  in  present  discussions  as  showing  a  certain  drift  of 
sentiment  250  years  ago.  They  had  to  do  mostly  with  the  question 
of  the  authorship  of  Genesis  or  the  Pentateuch,  being  reasons  for  or 
against  the  view  that  the  author  was  Moses.  The  evidence  cited 
for  the  negative  opinion  was  alleged  anachronisms  and  lack  of  order 
in  the  material.  Aben  Ezra,*  Bonfr6re,t  Hobbes,:):  and  Le  Clerc,§ 
taken  together,  refer  to  most  of  the  passages  which  are  quoted  in  our 

zu  bringen,  und  glauben  genug  getlian  zu  haben,  wenn  uusere  Arguinentatioa 
uas  und  alien  denen,  die  mit  uns  auf  gleichem  historischen  und  religiosen  Bodeu 
stehen,  geniigt." 

*  Co7n.  in  Deut.,  xxxviii.  5. 

f  Pentateuchus  3Josis  Com.  lllustratua,  1625. 

X  Leviathan,  1685,  1839-45. 

§  Seniimens  de  quelgues  theologiena  de  HoUande,  1685. 


o  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

day  as  showing  an  anachronistic  or  post-Mosaic  coloring.  They 
noted  the  following:  Gen.  xii.  6  (cf.  xiii.  7),  "And  the  Canaanite 
was  then  in  the  land  ;"  xiii.  18  (cf.  xii.  8),  where  the  name  Hebron 
is  given  to  the  earlier  Kirjath-arba  ;  xiv.  13  (cf.  xxxix.  14,  xii.  12), 
where  Canaan  is  called  "  the  land  of  the  Hebrews ;"  xiv.  14,  where 
the  name  Dan  is  given  to  Laish  ;  xx.  7,  where  Abraham  is  called  a 
nabi^  prophet,  a  title  claimed  to  be  of  later  origin  ;  xxxv.  19,  where 
it  is  said  of  Ephrath  that  "  the  same  is  Bethlehem  ;"  xxxvi.  31, 
where  occurs  a  list  of  Bdomitish  kings  of  whom  it  is  said  that  they 
lived  "before  a  king  ruled  in  Israel;"  1.  10,  where  is  found  the  ex- 
pression "  beyond  Jordan,"  alleged  to  be  a  technical  term  for  the 
east  side  of  the  river. 

Besides  these  familiar  instances,  Le  Clerc  regarded  the  naming  of 
Cush  in  ii.  13,  and  the  "  tower  of  Eder  "  in  xxxv.  21,  as  anach- 
ronisms, under  the  mistaken  assumption  that  by  the  former  Ethiopia 
is  meant,  and  by  the  latter  a  tower  of  the  same  name  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Jerusalem.  Texts  of  a  similar  kind,  apparently  over- 
looked by  these  earlier  explorers,  but  made  use  of  since,  are  these  : 
Gen.  xii  (cf.  xiii.  14,  xxviii.  14),  where  an  expression  supposed 
to  be  peculiar  to  Palestine,  and  so  out  of  harmony  with  Mosaic  au- 
thorship, is  employed  for  west  and  westward,  south  and  southward ; 
XX.  7,  xxvi.  5,  where  in  a  narrative  of  Abraham's  time  is  used  an 
alleged  Deuteronomic  expression,  "  my  charge,  my  commandments, 
my  statutes  and  my  laws  ;"  xxxiv.  7,  where  it  is  said  of  the  sons  of 
Jacob  that  they  were  wroth  because  Shechem,  the  son  of  Hamor, 
had  "  wrought  folly  in  Israel,"  Israel  being  then  a  quite  new  name 
for  Jacob ;  and  xxxviii.  8,  where  the  Mosaic  law  of  the  levirate  is 
said  to  be  anticipated. 

All  that  it  is  necessary  to  do  with  these  passages  just  now  is  to 
epitomize  the  results  reached.  A  first  glance  shows  that  they  are  of 
a  superficial  character.  They  are,  for  the  most  part,  loosely  attached 
remarks,  the  fuzz  of  the  garment  rather  than  a  part  of  the  web  and 
woof.  Were  it  to  be  conceded  that  they  mean,  in  each  case,  what 
they  are  supposed  to  mean  by  those  who  cite  them  for  the  purpose 
named,  their  bearing  on  the  authorship  or  compilation  of  Genesis 
would  be  but  slight.  Quite  a  number,  however,  cannot  be  given 
the  sense  assigned.  Others  are  simply  indications  of  old  customs  on 
which  subsequent  Mosaic  institutions  were  founded.  Others  still 
may  be  due  to  prolepsis,  a  somewhat  later  occurrence  being  antici- 
pated by  the  still  later  narrator  who  need  not  have  been  other  than 
Moses.  This  could  have  been  done  in  perfect  good  faith  and  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  accepted  rules  of  composition.  A  verj'^few  may 
be  glosses,  or  editorial  accretions,  dating  from  a  later  period  than 
Moses. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  9 

The  most  recent  theory  of  the  origin  of  Genesis  is  by  no  means  able 
to  dispense  with  the  hypothesis  of  glosses  and  editorial  additions. 
Taking  the  work  of  Kautzsch  and  Socin  as  a  standard,  there  are  more 
than  a  score  of  the  former  required  in  the  adjustment  of  the  analysis, 
while  the  editorial  matter  occupies  no  inconsiderable  part  of  the  book. 
There  are  at  least  a  hundred  instances  where  the  editorial  hand  is 
said  to  appear.  The  statement  often  made  that,  to  free  the  book  of 
Genesis  of  anachronistic  matter,  if  referred  to  the  Mosaic  period,  one 
would  need  to  assume  the  existence  of  glosses,  may  be  admitted  as 
valid.  The  book  was  subject  in  its  transmission  to  many  of  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  other  ancient  books.  But  if  these  are  the  only  signs  of  it,  it 
seems  to  have  suffered  to  only  an  infinitesimal  degree.  The  forerun- 
ners of  modern  Biblical  criticism  were  not  themselves  disposed,  gener- 
ally speaking,  to  claim  more  for  these  passages  than  that  they  show 
a  later  touching  up  of  Genesis,  and  that  in  its  present  form  it  did  not 
come  wholly  from  the  hand  of  Moses.*  So  far  from  being  surprised 
that  glosses  and  editorial  remarks  appear  in  a  work  of  great  an- 
tiquity, the  real  wonder  is  that  in  this  case  they  are  so  few.  "When 
compared  with  other  Biblical  works  even,  they  appear  as  a  minimum. 

With  respect  to  certain  other  features  of  Genesis,  a  more  radical 
attitude  was  assumed  by  Spinoza  f  and  by  Richard  Simon,:|:  who  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  rabbi  Simon,  a  contemporary  of  Aben  Ezra. 
Spinoza  looked  upon  the  whole  Pentateuch  as  a  sort  of  miscellany, 
the  debris  of  a  primitive  literature  collected  by  a  pious  editor  of 
later  times  and  annotated  by  Ezra.  Simon  held  that  the  historical 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  including  Genesis,  had  been  produced, 
under  Moses'  direction,  by  public  annalists  after  Egyptian  models. 
Undoubtedly  Simon  was  correct  as  it  respects  the  natural  effect  of 
Egyptian  culture  on  Moses  and  his  times.  The  hieratic  method  of 
writing  came  into  vogue  about  1700  B.C.  It  greatly  stimulated 
composition  of  all  kinds.  The  official  inscriptions  of  ihe  kings, 
aside  from  other  and  weightier  reasons,  might  readily  have  sug- 
gested to  the  leader  of  the  exodus  a  similar  method  of  preserving 
the  history  of  his  people.  Although  the  so-called  scribe  (in  the 
English  Bible)  and  recorder,  sopher^  first  appears  in  the  time  of 
David,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the  presence  of  an  official  of  this 
sort  while  Israel  was  still  in  Egypt  (Ex.  v.  6)  and  often  later.  He 
was  called  shoter,^  writer,  and  we  find   him  associated  now  with 

*  Cf.  remark  of  Weslplial,  Les  Sources  du  Pentateuque,  p.  59  :  "  Ces  objections 
de  detail  sontde  celles  que  I'oa  pent  reaouveler  au  sujet  des  o^uvres  les  plus  in- 
conlestoes  de  la  litterature  antique,  sans  que  rauthenlicil6  de  leur  auteur  soil 
pour  cela  mise  en  question." 

f  Tractatus  Theologicopoliticus,  1G70. 

X  Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  1678. 

§This  word,  in  the  same  sense,  is  at  home  in  the  Assyro-Babylonian  language. 


10  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

the  elders  (Num.  xi,  16),  again  with  the  leaders  of  the  army  (Deut. 
i.  15)  and  with  the  judges  (Deut.  xvi.  18). 

Simon  based  his  view  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  earlier 
Biblical  history  was  recorded  on  the  form  in  which  it  now  appears. 
For  example,  he  finds,  like  later  critics,  though  to  a  much  less  ex- 
tent, double  accounts  of  the  same  event  in  Genesis.  He  instances 
the  creation  of  man  and  woman  in  chaps,  i  and  ii.  At  the  same 
time  he  suggests  a  shrewd  reason  for  supposing  that  one  account 
presupposes  the  other.  The  language  of  the  woman  to  the  serpent, 
quoted  in  the  context,  implies  that  she,  as  well  as  her  husband, 
had  been  forbidden  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil.  If,  with  some,  however,  the  narrative  in  chap,  ii  is  held  to  a 
strict  chronological  sequence,  she  was  not  created  when  the  com- 
mand was  given  and  in  the  language  of  our  later  courts  might 
easily  have  proved  an  alibi.  In  the  account  of  the  Flood,  too, 
Simon  saw,  as  he  thought,  evidence  of  compilation ;  but  it  is  not 
of  a  sort  to  help  the  present-day  analysts.  In  vii.  17  it  is  said  that 
"  the  waters  increased  and  bare  up  the  ark  and  it  was  lifted  up 
above  the  earth."  In  each  of  the  three  verses  next  succeeding  es- 
sentially the  same  thought  of  the  increase  of  the  water  is  repeated 
in  somewhat  different  terms,  altogether  four  times ;  but  three  of 
these  repetitions  occur  in  the  document  now  known  as  P.  So  in 
each  of  the  verses  21-23  of  the  same  chapter  Simon  notices  that 
the  destruction  of  animal  life  by  the  Flood  is  described  in 
slightly  variant  forms.  Two  of  these  repetitions,  likewise,  occur 
in  P.  These  examples  indicate  a  style  here  and  there  in  Genesis 
which  peculiarly  adapts  it  to  the  kind  of  analysis  now  so  popular. 
At  the  same  time,  and  equally,  they  suggest  a  serious  doubt  whether 
the  current  analysis  has  been  made  along  really  logical  lines.* 

The  beginning  of  modern  Pentateuchal  criticism  is  generally 
dated  from  Astruc  (1753).t  It  certainly  attracted  to  itself  from  his 
day  a  more  continuous  attention  from  Biblical  scholars.  Though 
Astruc  did  not  himself  make  the  discovery  of  the  peculiar  alterna- 
tion of  the  divine  names,  Elohim  and  Jehovah,  in  the  earlier  chap- 
ters of  Genesis,  he  was  the  first  to  use  the  fact  in  the  interests  of 
critical  analysis.  It  is  known  that  he  divided  the  book  principally 
between  two  sources  represented,  as  he  supposed,  by  these  two  titles, 
holding  that  only  a  few  minor  sections  were  of  other  origin.  The 
analysis  he  made  on  this  basis  is  not  simply  interesting  in  itself,  it 

*  Astruc  also  in  his  Memoires  noted  this  fact  of  repetition  in  the  matter  now 
ascribed  to  P  in  the  account  of  the  Flood,  and  referred  vii.  20,  as  well  as  vss. 
23  and  24,  to  a  third  document,  which  he  named  C. 

f  Conjectures  sur  les  memoires  originmtx  dont  il  parait  que  Mo'ise  s'est  servi 
pour  composer  le  livre  de  la  Genese,  Bruxelles,  1753. 


ORiaiN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  11 

is  of  value  for  purposes  of  comparison.  Tlie  most  recent  form  of 
it  also  purports  to  be  closely  guided  by  the  use  of  these  titles  of  Deity. 
How  then  does  the  earliest  form  compare  with  the  latest? 

We  find  but  a  single  section  where  Astruc's  division  of  the  Elohim 
document  exactly  accords  with  that  of  Kautzsch  and  Socin  (chap, 
xxiii).  There  are  whole  chapters  which  he  gives  to  the  Elohist  which 
by  them  are  assigned  to  the  Jehovist ;  in  which,  iu  fact,  he  finds 
the  most  of  the  material.  In  the  other  principal  document  the  dis- 
agreement is  not  so  nearly  total,  but  it  is  wide.  Another  thing  that 
is  noticeable  is  the  actual  dominance  given  by  the  earlier  critic  to 
the  divine  names  in  their  control  of  the  material.  The  later  pro- 
fess to  recognize  such  dominance.  But  as  matter  of  procedure,  they 
either  change  the  names  in  numerous  instances  to  suit  their  ideas  of 
the  material  (vii.  9,  xiv.  22,  xvii.  21,  xxi.  1,  xxii.  11,  xxviii.  21, 
xxxi.  50);  or  allow  them,  as  historical  settings,  in  instances  still  more 
numerous  only  bare  excerpts  from  the  text  (v.  29,  vii.  16,  xix.  29 
XX.  18,  xxi.  1,  33,  xxii.  14-18,  xxvii.  28,  xxx.  24,  27,  xxxi.  3 
xxxiii.  5,  11),  ordinarily  a  single  verse  and  from  that  down  to  half  a 
dozen  words.  It  is  strongly  suggestive  of  the  growth  of  theory  be- 
yond the  bounds  of  fact. 

Other  respects  in  which  Astruc  differed  from  modern  critics  are : 
(1)  He  did  not  feel  absolute  confidence  in  his  own  analysis,  es- 
pecially that  he  had  just  the  right  number  of  documents.  (2)  He 
did  not  refer  any  apparent  disorder  which  he  found  in  Genesis  to  the 
original  compiler,  but  to  later  wholly  natural  vicissitudes.  Moses, 
he  thought,  had  left  his  sources  in  their  entirety  side  by  side.  These 
in  process  of  time  became  more  or  less  confounded  with  one  an- 
other. (3)  His  aim  in  the  analysis  which  he  made  was  to  secure  a 
greater  harmony  in  the  book,  or  at  least  to  show  where  the  present 
supposed  disagreements  originated.  He  thought  his  theory  recon- 
ciled some  discrepancies  in  chronology.  With  the  later  critics,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  greater  number  of  discrepancies  appear  only 
after  the  analysis  is  made.  (4)  If  Astruc  really  achieved,  as  he 
fancied,  harmony  in  the  chronology  by  means  of  his  analysis, 
then  the  original  confusion  remains  with  the  present  one ;  for  it 
differs  from  the  former  in  the  parts  the  most  essential  *  to  such 
harmony. 

The  time  has  not  yet  come,  perhaps,  for  a  wholly  conclusive  dis- 

*  Speaking  of  differences  of  this  sort  in  the  life  of  Abraham,  he  says  :  "  Tout 
se  trouve  en  regie  pour  la  suite  de  la  narration  et  pour  I'ordre  de  la  chronologie, 
parceque  le  vers.  19  du  chap,  xxv,  qui  appartient  au  m^moire  B,  va  se  joindre  a 
la  fin  du  chap,  xxiv,  qui  appartient  au  nieme  memoire  et  dont  il  est  une  suite,  et 
que  les  dixhuit  versets  du  commencement  du  chap,  xxv  se  rangent  d'eux-memes 
soux  deux  autres  memoires  auxquels  il  est  Evident  qu'ils  appartiennent."  Com- 
pare the  analysis  of  Kautzsch  and  Socin. 


12  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

cussion  of  the  question  why  Elohim  and  Jehovah  and  other  divine 
titles  are  used  as  they  are  in  Genesis.  There  are  certain  things, 
however,  which  will  be  among  the  decisive  factors  of  such  a  dis- 
cussion when  it  comes.  (1)  Genesis  much  more  than  any  other 
Biblical  book  emphasizes  the  significance  of  all  proper  names. 
{2)  In  certain  places  the  same  source  discriminates  between  the 
titles  Elohim  and  Jehovah  on  the  ground  of  sense  or  usage.  This 
all  allow.  For  example,  in  the  dialogue  of  Eve  with  the  serpent, 
both  she  and  the  serpent  use  throughout  Elohim,  although  before 
and  after  this  episode  the  double  title  Jehovah-Elohim  is  employed 
(xiii.  1-6 ;  cf.  iv.  25,  vi.  2,  4,  ix.  27,  xxxii.  30,  31,  xxxix.  9, 
xliv.  16).  (3)  Whenever  a  new  name  of  God  is  first  introduced, 
like  El  Elyon,  Adonai,  El  Shaddai,  El  01am  (xxi.  33),  Jeho- 
vah, apparently  for  purposes  of  identification,  is  associated  with 
it  (xiv.  22,  XV.  2,  xvii.  1),  just  as,  on  the  same  principle,  in  chaps, 
ii  and  iii,  where  Jehovah  first  comes  into  use,  it  is  itself  associ- 
ated, for  about  a  score  of  times,  though  put  first,  with  Elohim. 
(4)  Any  peculiar  alternation  of  the  titles  Elohim  and  Jehovah  in 
successive  sections  of  the  text  are  confined  to  a  little  more  than  the 
first  third  of  the  book ;  and  in  that  portion  the  practice  is  not  uni- 
form. There  are  relatively  few  continuous  passages,  like  chaps,  i,  ii, 
iii,  xvii  and  xviii,  which  are  without  exception  ascribed  to  one  or  the 
other  of  the  documents.  In  the  last  ten  chapters  the  name  of  God 
is  used  altogether  but  forty  times,  over  against  thirty-four  in  the 
first  chapter  alone.  Of  these  forty  occurrences,  thirty-six  have  the 
word  Elohim,  three  El-Shaddai,  that  is,  God  Almighty,  and 
one  Jehovah.  While  this  fact  is  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  character 
of  the  material,  being  mainly  the  history  of  Joseph  in  Egypt,  it  is 
also  evident  that  less  importance  is  attached  now  than  in  the  begin- 
ning to  the  matter  of  emphasizing  the  distinction  between  Elohim  and 
Jehovah,  as  titles  of  Deity.  That  lesson  had  already  been  sufficiently 
impressed.  This  is  a  most  important  fact  of  which  far  too  little 
has  been  made.  It  has  a  most  significant  bearing,  not  only  upon 
Astruc's  partition  of  Genesis  on  the  basis  of  the  divine  names,  but 
especially  upon  the  present  one  which,  starting  with  it,  carries  the 
analysis  through  the  whole  Hexateuch.  Moreover,  the  variations 
of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  given  elsewhere,  particularly  those  of 
the  LXX.,  to  which  our  critics  are  so  prone  to  resort  when  it  will 
serve  a  purpose,  and  those  of  the  Peshito  version,  introduce  a  dis- 
turbing element  into  the  calculation  with  which  it  would  be  unwise 
not  to  reckon.  (5)  Usage  in  Genesis  shows,  and  it  is  to  be  assumed 
as  fact  until  disproved,  that  the  title  Jehovah  is  not  only  pre-Mosaic 
but  pre- Abrahamitic,  as  Wellhausen  and  others  of  his  school  admit.* 

*  OescMcMe  der  Hebraer,  i,  157.     Cf.  "Wellhausen,  Oescldchte,  etc.,  i,  359,  and 
Montefiore,  Hibbert  Lectures,  1893,  pp.  53,  53. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  IS 

In  addition  to  the  reasons  given  in  a  previous  work*  why  Ex.  vi.  3^ 
is  not  to  be  understood  literally,  to  the  efi'ect  that  God  was  not  known 
to  the  patriarchs  under  the  name  Jehovah,  one  suggested  by  Kittel 
and  others  may  be  stated.  To  have  sent  Moses,  he  says,  to  the 
Israelites  with  a  name  for  God,  the  God  of  their  fathers,  with  which 
neither  they  nor  their  fathers  were  familiar,  would  not  only  have 
been  unexpected  in  itself,  but  would  most  certainly  have  served  to 
defeat  the  purpose  of  his  mission.  Still  further,  while  such  an 
exegesis  of  the  passage  is  directly  in  the  face  of  the  usage  of  Gen- 
esis, as  we  have  said,  and  is  properly  the  product  of  the  theory 
which  it  is  brought  to  sustain,  it  is  also  precarious  in  view  of  other 
recently  discovered  facts.  Much  reliance  has  been  placed  upon  the 
circumstance  that  before  Moses  only  one  proper  name  has  been  found 
in  the  Bible  compounded  with  that  of  Jehovah,  namely,  Jochebed, 
the  mother  of  Moses  (Ex.  vi.  20).  This  is  true,  but  it  is  also  true 
of  the  three  other  titles  of  God  besides  El  used  in  Genesis,  and  hence 
is  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  singular.f  As  it  respects  Jehovah,  it  is 
not  true  of  extra-Biblical  names.  In  a  private  letter  received  in 
answer  to  an  inquiry.  Prof.  Pinches,  of  the  British  Museum,  writes 
that  he  has  discovered  on  the  Assyrian  monuments  many  names 
compounded  with  the  Babylonian  equivalent  for  Jehovah.  That 
is,  Jah,  Jahu.  This  is  no  other  than  the  so-called  poetic  or  shorter 
form  of  the  Bible.  It  occurs  as  early  as  the  twenty-third  century 
B.C.  on  the  monuments.  In  a  text  dated  2380  B.C.,  out  of  sixteen 
names  of  witnesses  there  is  one  which  has  that  syllable,  and  the 
words  thus  compounded  occur  increasingly  often  after  that  period. 
This  would  carry  us  back  to  a  time  several  hundred  years  before 
Abraham ;  who  might  easily  thus,  if  in  no  other  way,  have  become 
acquainted  with  the  word.  If  this  were  the  Palestinian  origin  of 
the  title,  as  it  might  well  have  been,  it  would  help  explain  the 
many  frequent  and  peculiar  uses  of  it  in  the  twenty-fourth  and 
some  subsequent  chapters  of    Genesis,:}:  which  have   always   been 

*  Genesis  Printed  in  Colors,  p.  vi. 

fCf.  Nestle,  Die  Israelitischen  Eigennamen,  1876,  pp.  44ff. 

X  We  refer  to  the  circumstance  of  its  extraordinarily  frequent  use  in  chap, 
xxiv,  and  afterwards  whenever  there  is  contact  with  I^aran.  It  is  even  found 
in  the  mouth  of  Laban  (xxx.  27  ;  of.  xxxi.  29.  etc.).  This  fact  suggests  further, 
that  were  Jah  to  be  talten  as  the  earlier  form  of  Jehovah,  as  some  hold  (Fried. 
Delitzsch,  Wo  lag  das  Paradies,  p.  159ff.).  and  as  now  seems  not  unlikely,  instead 
of  a  shortened  form,  then  Ex.  vi.  3  might  be  accepted  in  a  literal  sense  and  still 
not  be  out  of  harmony  with  the  usage  of  Genesis.  It  would  then  only  be 
necessary  to  suppose  that  the  writer  of  Genesis— who  need  not  have  been  later 
than  Moses— used  this  form  proleptically  in  place  of  the  earlier  form  having 
the  same  etymological,  but  not  the  same  specific  sense.  Then,  too,  Ex.  iii.  14 
would  furnish  a  natural  transition  to  Ex.  vi.  3. 


14  IRE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

somewhat  of  a  puzzle.*  (6)  There  is  no  evidence  in  Genesis,  or  any- 
other  Biblical  book,  that  a  distinction  of  person  or  authority  is  recog- 
nized between  Elohim  and  Jehovah ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  their 
identification  is  complete.  (7)  If  the  titles  Elohim  and  Jehovah, 
severally,  are  to  be  understood  as  characterizing  documents,  then 
Elohim  should  naturally  be  found  with  the  supposed  earlier  docu- 
ment,t  and,  by  every  consideration,  Jehovah  should  dominate  in  the 
so-called  Priests'  Code  and  in  all  matter  of  the  Hexateuch  relating 
to  distinctively  religious  institutions.  And  the  alleged  ^ir-s^  intro- 
duction of  the  title  Jehovah,  in  connection  with  Moses  (Ex.  vi.  3), 
were  it  to  be  taken  as  fact,  cannot  alter  this  conclusion ;  it  rather 
•confirms  it.  Against  this  clearly  normal  arrangement,  the  assump- 
tion of  a  sentiment  or  usage  to  the  contrary  in  the  later  times  is 
without  force.  Both  titles  for  God  were  at  the  service  of  both 
writers  and  of  all  writers. 

The  two  principal  titles  of  God  occur  in  Genesis  about  three 
hundred  and  fifty  times.  The  great  majority  of  these  occurrences 
may  be  readily  classified  under  these  three  divisions.  (1)  Elohim 
is  used  rather  than  Jehovah  because  of  the  natural  difference  in 
the  conception  of  God  as  Creator  and  Euler  in  nature  and  God  in 
human  history,  or  as  Theocratic  Ruler.  (2)  Elohim  is  used  appella- 
tively,  especially  to  mark  the  distinction  between  God  and  man  as 
such.  Here  is  to  be  included  a  considerable  number  of  instances 
where  the  word  for  God  is  in  the  construct  relation  and  Jehovah  as 
a  proper  name  would  be  unsuitable.  (3)  This  name  or  that  is  used 
on   the   ground   that,  for   one  of  the  above  reasons,  it   has  been 

*Cf.  Eichliorn,  Einleitung,  p.  146  :  "Gott  bat  dort  (Ex.  vi.  3)  die  Absicht, 
Mosen,  und  durcb  ibn  das  bebraiscbe  Volk  zu  versicbern,  dass  er  nun  im  Begriff 
«ei,  sein  altes  ibrea  Vorfabren  gegebenes  Wort  zu  erfiillen — dies  ist  der  Inbalt 
der  nacbslfolgenden  Verse  (3-7),  wie  alle  Ausleger  einmutbig  beicrkeanen — wie 
iinpassend  ware  im  Eingang  zu  diesem  Versprecben  eiae  Nacbricbl  von  deni 
Namen,  dea  er  bei  den  Patriarcben  getragen  babe  ?  Unterscbeidet  man  nur 
Satz  und  Einkleidung,  so  scbliesst  slcb  Eingang  und  Versprecben  selbst  aufs 
genaueste  an  einander  an.  Nun  bedeutet  El  Sbaddai  den  almacbtigen  Gott, 
und  Jebovab  den  der  unveriinderlicb  derselbe  bei  seinen  Gesinnungen  bleibt 
(Ex.  iii.  14)  ;  und  mit  einem  Namen  benannt  werden  bedeutet  oft  so  viel  als  das 
wirklicb  sein  was  der  Name  ausdriickt.  Leicbt  und  naturlicb  ist  also  der 
Sinn  des  Verses  :  '  E*re  Vorfabren  kannten  micb  nur  als  den  allmacbtigen 
Gott,  nicbt  aber  als  den,  der  bei  seinen  Gesinnungen  unveranderlicb  bleibt.'  " 

fThe  circumstance  tbat  ba-Elobim  is  used  as  tbe  subject  of  a  sentence  in 
some  passages  (xx.  6,  xxii.  1,  3,  9,  xxvii.  28,  xxxv.  7,  xli.  25,  28,  32,  xliv.  16, 
xlv.  8,  xlviii.  15— the  last  tbree=J)  and  tbat  Elobim  is  sometimes  employed 
witb  a  plural  verb  (xxxi.  53,  xxxv.  7)  are  hardly  worth  naming  as  characteris- 
tics of  a  document  over  against  another  supposed  to  be,  in  general,  of  tbe  same 
age.  Tbe  fact  of  Jehovistic  and  Elobistic  Psalms  has  no  direct  bearing  on  the 
question  of  the  adaptation  in  Genesis  of  tbe  name  of  God  to  the  matter  in  the 
midst  of  which  it  is  found.  Cf.  Konig,  Einleit.,  p.  194.  Cf.  Lagarde's  view 
<Cheyne,  Founders  of  Criticism,  p.  184). 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  15 

employed  in  a  previous  section,  to  which  evident  though  tacit  ref- 
erence is  thus  made.  There  are  a  very  few  places  where  the  titles 
are  interchanged  for  one  another  on  grounds  not  now  specially  ap- 
parent ;  but,  with  a  single  exception,  they  are  all  in  the  last  part  of 
the  book.  Making  due  allowance  for  errors  in  judgment  and  varia- 
tions of  the  text,  this  is  a  remarkable  result  and  comes  as  near  as 
could  reasonably  be  expected  of  any  theory,  perhaps,  to  an  expla- 
nation of  the  facts.  The  theory  of  three  continuous  documents  now 
current  certainly  holds,  as  we  have  seen,  no  comparison  with  it. 

Astruc's  theory  of  two  principal  sources  in  Genesis  based  on  the 
alternation  of  the  divine  names  found  a  powerful  supporter  in  Eich- 
horn.*  This  scholar,  too,  greatly  extended  Astruc's  list  of  alleged 
duplicated  passages,  and  made  much  of  points  of  style  and  phraseo- 
logy as  characteristics  of  the  same.  Not  a  little  of  his  reasoning  has 
been  thought  worthy  of  reproduction  in  later  discussions  and  will  be 
noticed  in  its  place.  In  other  respects  Eichhorn  as  directly  antago- 
nized present  positions.  For  example,  like  Simon,  he  discovered 
duplication  in  the  material  where  critics  now  recognize  but  one 
document  (vii.  21,  22,  P) ;  pronounced  J's  narrative  cold,  P's  warm 
and  full  of  hyperbole — for  which,  perhaps,  his  ascribing  E's  matter 
to  P  is  a  partial  excuse  (p.  93) ;  regarded  the  genealogical  lists  of 
Genesis  as  a  marked  sign  of  antiquity  (p.  28) ;  disputed,  against 
Ilgen,  the  existence  of  E,  or  the  second  Elohist  altogether  (p.  75) ; 
saw  no  reason,  as  is  well  known,  for  bringing  down  the  composition 
of  the  book  below  the  age  of  Moses,  and  agreed  with  Eeuss  f  and 
Wellhausen  \  in  looking  upon  chaps,  i  and  ii  (?)  as  an  interpola- 
tion, while  most  modern  critics  regard  them  as  the  tap-root  of  the 
Jehovistic  source  (p.  134).  Eichhorn's  chapter  on  the  genuineness 
of  Genesis  is  very  interesting  reading  and  by  no  means  antiquated. 

The  next  most  important  critic  was  Ilgen, §  who  has  been  already 
named.  His  work  was  characterized  by  great  independence.  He 
stands  at  the  point  of  transition  between  the  first  theory,  of  docu- 
ments, represented  by  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  and  that  of  fragments, 
chiefly  represented  by  Vater  and  Hartmann.  Much  has  been  made 
of  Ilgen's  original  discovery  of  a  so-called  second  Elohist,  of  which 
Hupfeld  afterwards  availed  himself.  It  has  been  generally  over- 
looked that  it  was  not  of  Ilgen's  second  Elohist  that  Hupfeld  availed 
himself.  The  correspondence,  for  the  most  part,  was  only  in  name ; 
Ilgen  not  only  did  not  seek  to  harmonize  his  theory  with  the  divine 

*  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1833. 
\  Oescldchte  der  Ileiligen  ScJiriften,  p.  255. 
X  Composition  des  Eexateuchs,  p.  13. 

§  Die  Urkunden  des  Jerusalemitischen  Tempelarchivs  in  ihrer  Urgeatalt,  etc., 
1789. 


16  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

titles,  but,  as  it  might  almost  seem,  to  establish  it  in  direct  spite  of 
them.  He  assigned  most  of  the  matter  which  before  and  since  has 
been  given  to  the  Jehovist  to  his  second  Elohist.  What  is  even 
more  curious,  such  being  the  case,  he  mixed  up  beyond  recogni- 
tion this  Elohist  with  the  first,  even  in  the  opening  chapter  of 
Genesis  (vers.  5,  8,  13,  23,  31). 

The  Jehovist,  on  the  other  hand,  he  made  begin  with  the  twelfth 
chapter,  and  allowed  him  but  an  insignificant  portion  of  the  material; 
nothing  beyond  chap,  xxxviii.  To  cap  the  climax,  he  gave  to  this 
source  the  name  of  first  Jehovist  for  the  naive  reason  that  another 
Jehovist  might  be  discovered  in  the  future.  Most  remarkable  of 
critics !  He  did  not  look  upon  his  own  work  as  a  finality.  Still 
Ilgen  did  not  lack  self-assertion.  In  the  minuteness  of  his  analysis 
he  probably  outstripped  all  his  colleagues.  The  division  of  single 
verses  between  different  documents  may  be  almost  said  to  have 
been  a  rule  rather  than  the  exception  with  him.  In  sections  which 
he  ascribes  to  the  first  Elohist  alone  there  are  fifty-two  such  frag- 
ments of  verses  and  thirty-nine  in  the  second  Elohist.  He  has  been 
commended  *  for  anticipating  in  the  history  of  Joseph,  some  of  the 
best  results  of  modern  analysis.  This  is  true  in  any  sense  to  an  ex- 
ceedingly limited  extent.  Taking  chap,  xxxvii  as  an  example,  we 
find  that  he  assigns  to  the  first  Elohist,  that  is  P,  vers.  1-3,  4  in 
part,  18  in  part,  21,  22,  23  in  part,  24,  25  in  part,  29-31,  32  in  part, 
34,  36,  and  the  rest  to  the  second  Elohist.  Kautzsch  and  Socin  on 
the  other  hand  ascribe  only  ver.  1  and  part  of  2  to  P,  the  rest  to  J 
and  E ;  and  the  line  of  separation  dividing  the  matter  assigned  the 
second  Elohist  agrees  only  in  a  single  instance  with  that  of  Ilgen. 
A  second  respect  in  which  Ilgen  marks  a  transition  is  in  his  view 
of  the  credibility  of  Genesis.  He  was  at  considerable  remove  from 
the  platform  of  Astruc  and  Eichhorn.  He  began  to  show  what  in 
the  parlance  of  modern  criticism,  as  we  have  already  noted  in  the 
case  of  Kuenen,  is  known  as  the  "  historic  sense."  This  seems  to  be 
a  kind  of  preternatural  sixth  sense  which  enables  its  happy  possessor 
to  see  what  others  do  not,  and,  at  the  same  time,  not  to  see  what  it 
does  not  wish  to. 

If  the  hitherto  peaceful  course  of  the  criticism  was  violently  dis- 
turbed by  Ilgen,  it  received  an  almost  fatal  shock  from  Yater.f 
Genesis,  he  maintained,  was  a  heterogeneous  collection  of  single 
pieces  of  composition.  The  line  of  a  vague  chronology  might,  in- 
deed, be  detected  running  through  the  separate  parts  ;  but  it  did  not 
bind  them  into  one  connected  whole.     To  prove  this  Yater  used,  in 

*  Cheyne,  The  Founders  of  Criticism,  p.  30. 

\  Com.  uber  den  Pentateuch,  1805.  Vater  was  much  iafluenced  in  his  views 
by  the  works  of  Geddes,  London,  1793,  1800. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  17 

general,  the  arguments  urged  in  favor  of  the  original  theory  of  docu- 
ments, the  peculiar  recurrence  of  the  divine  names,  repetitions  in 
the  narrative,  and  the  numerous  superscriptions  and  subscriptions. 
To  the  objection  that  such  a  mass  of  fragments  in  written  form 
could  hardly  be  conceived  of  as  circulating  among  the  people  of 
Israel,  he  replied  :  "Difficult,  to  be  sure,  it  is  ;  but  it  is  a  difficulty 
which  inheres  in  the  subject,  that  is,  in  the  form  of  the  Pentateuch 
as  it  now  appears.  And  it  is  far  less  difficult,  and  a  great  deal  less 
artificial,  than  the  theory  of  two  documents  covering  the  same 
ground,  the  parts  of  which  have  been  patched  together  to  make  up 
Genesis."* 

Yater's  views  were  ably  supported  by  Hartmann,f  but  other- 
wise had  a  small  and  unimportant  following.  In  one  respect 
however,  they  mark  an  epoch.  Neither  Astruc  nor  Bichhorn  had 
been  disposed  to  detach  Genesis  from  the  age  of  Moses.  Ilo-en  also 
left  that  question  untouched,  though  querying  its  trustworthiness. 
But  Vater  and  Hartmann  both  claimed  that  it  arose  long  after 
Moses'  time,  and  that  its  matter  had  been  greatly  affected  by  tradi- 
tion ;  and  from  now  on  the  veracity  of  Biblical  statements  began  to 
be  seriously  and  persistently  called  in  question,  until,  at  present,  its 
lack  of  credibility  is  a  fundamental  assumption,  tacit  or  outspoken, 
of  a  growing  number  of  investigators. 

Naturally  the  theory  of  fragments  brought  the  whole  subject  of 
Pentateuchal  criticism  into  the  greatest  confusion;  almost  every 
thread  of  connection  was  broken.  The  original  elements  only  re- 
mained. When  DeWette  took  up  the  subject  anew,  he  was  at  a 
loss,  at  first,  which  of  the  two  paths  hitherto  marked  out  to  follow.;}: 
In  the  same  work  he  speaks  of  the  "  Jehovah-fragmentist  "  and  of 
"  the  plan  and  style  of  our  Elohist."  On  one  point,  however,  he  was 
clear.  Genesis  was  no  history.  A  narrator  who  tells  incredible  things 
of  this  sort,  even  though  he  have  good  intentions,  is  no  historian.  He 
is  rather  a  poet.  Genesis  is  an  epic.  Our  first  business  with  such  a 
book  is  not  with  its  sources  and  the  question  of  their  arrangement ; 
it  is  to  determine  its  essential  character  as  historic  or  otherwise. 

Ewald,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  majority  of  scholars,  had 
been  strongly  repelled  by  the  extreme  positions  of  Vater.  In  1823 
he  published  a  book  on  the  Composition  of  Genesis,  in  which  he  de- 
fended, on  internal  grounds,  its  unity,  systematic  construction  and 
natural  literary  growth.     He  was  supported  by  Drechsler  who,  a 

*  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  epithet  "  patchwork  "  applied  to  tlie  compilation 
theory  did  not  originate  with  conservative  critics  (cf.  ibid.,  p.  514). 

\  Historisch-kritische  Forschungeti,  etc.,  1831. 

if  It  was  not  till  the  fifth  edition  of  his  Einleitung  that  DeWette  adopted  the 
supplementary  theory. 
0 


18  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

few  years  later,  wrote  a  book  on  the  Genuineness  and  Unity  of 
Genesis*  Ewald  afterwards f  partially  changed  his  ground,  ac- 
cepting, in  a  modified  form,  the  theory  of  supplements.  Clearly 
this  change  affected  his  former  reasoning  only  so  far  as  it  rested  on 
insecure  hypotheses  rather  than  unalterable  facts.  As  a  collection 
of  such  facts  his  work  is  still  of  great  value. 

The  works  of  Ewald,  Drechsler  and  others  determined,  to  a  large 
extent,  the  form  of  the  next,  that  is  to  say,  the  third  critical  the- 
ory of  the  composition  of  Genesis.  It  assumed  the  relative  unity 
of  the  book,  one  principal  source,  the  Elohistic,  being  at  its  basis. 
This,  it  was  held,  had  been  supplemented  from  a  Jehovistic  source. 
From  this  fact  the  theory  took  its  name — the  supplementary  the- 
ory. There  was  a  difference  of  opinion  among  its  adherents  as  to 
the  Jehovistic  sections.  Some  held  that  the  Jehovist  was  the 
author  of  the  entire  work.  Others,  that  an  editor  had  added  the 
Jehovistic  portions  from  an  original  source.  All  were  agreed  on 
one  point :  the  absolute  identity  in  style  and  point  of  view  every- 
where of  the  Elohistic  portions,  including,  of  course,  the  second 
Elohist.  Yet  this  principle  was  precisely  the  opposite  of  that  which 
had  controlled  the  second  theory ;  it  is  hardly  less  repugnant  to 
that  which  is  now  in  vogue.  The  supplementary  theory  rallied 
to  its  standard,  first  or  last,  a  large  proportion  of  the  leading 
scholars  of  Germany.  It  contained  enough  of  truth,  moreover,  to 
make  its  hold  comparatively  lasting.  Even  now  it  is  the  favorite 
theory  of  so  clear  a  thinker  as  Principal  Cave,:}:  and  one  of  Ger- 
many's most  noted  critics  is  inclined  to  give  it  his  preference.!  But 
in  1853  another  effort  to  reshape  the  material  of  Genesis  was  at- 
tempted. On  former  occasions  a  change  had  been  brought  about 
by  contradiction,  as  electric  energy  is  evoked  by  the  contact  of 
opposites.  So  it  Avas  to  be  again.  Hupfeld  1|  denied  the  truth  of 
the  then  universal  postulate  on  which  the  supplementary  theory 
rested — the  unity  and  homogeneity  of  the  so-called  Elohistic  source. 
There  were,  he  held,  really  two  Elohistic  sources :  one  of  them, 
however,  being  more  Jehovistic  than  Elohistic  in  its  literary  and 
historical  character,  while  both  were  incrusted  with  much  foreign 
material.  This  theory  of  Hupfeld,  as  we  have  shown,  is  no  return 
to  that  of  Ilgen.  Hupfeld  used  Ilgen's  title  of  second  Elohist,  but 
he  assigned  to  it  an  almost  entirely  different  portion  of  the  text. 
He  found,  in  short,  as  he  supposed,  three  independent  accounts  of 

*  Die  AchtJieit  und  Einheitder  Genesis,  1838. 

\Jahrbuc7ter  fur   ^issenscliaftUche  Kritik,  1831;   Stud,  und  Kritiken,  1831, 

1833. 

X  Inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  1888. 
IKlostermann,  Neue  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift,  1891,  p.  693. 
)|  Quellen  der  Genesis,  1853. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  19 

the  early  history  of  the  race  of  Israel  in  Genesis.  An  editor,  using 
a  large  liberty  of  adding,  subtracting  and  changing,  had  merged 
them  in  one. 

This  new  theory  of  documents,  as  it  respects  Genesis,  is  essen- 
tially the  one  advocated  to-day  by  the  majority  of  European  critics. 
The  difference  is  mainly  one  of  chronological  order,  not  of  analysis. 
The  sources  of  Genesis  are  a  first  and  second  Elohist  and  a  Jehovist, 
with  an  editor  who  arranged  them  in  their  present  form.  How 
radical  its  departure  is  from  previous  theories  will  appear  at  a  glance. 
We  have  already  seen  that,  by  its  assumption  of  two  Elohists,  it 
denies  pointblank  the  formative  principle  of  the  supplementary 
theory.  But,  more  than  that,  Hupfeld  held,  as  just  noted,  and  it  is 
now  also  universally  maintained  by  the  adherents  of  the  theory, 
that  the  second  Elohist  is  Elohistic  only  in  name.  His  matter  so 
nearly  approaches  that  of  the  Jehovist  that  not  a  few  of  the  most 
clever  of  those  holding  the  theory  declare  themselves  unable  to 
separate  one  from  the  other.  That  is  to  say,  the  two  Elohistic 
sources  are  more  unlike  one  another  than  the  second  is  unlike  the 
Jehovist. 

Is  not  this  virtually  to  abandon  the  position  that  the  titles  Jeho- 
vah and  Elohim  are,  respectively,  characteristic  signs  of  distinct 
sources  ?  Ilgen  was  more  consistent,  in  giving  up  his  dependence  on 
the  peculiar  occurrence  of  these  titles  as  soon  as  he  adopted  the  the- 
ory of  three  sources.  Jehovah  and  Elohim  alike  appear  in  his 
second  Elohist,  and  may  be  said  to  be  characteristics  of  it.  His  pro- 
vision for  a  future  second  Jehovist  is  another  sign  of  the  same 
proper  concession.  Who  will  deny  the  possibility  of  separating 
from  the  Jehovistic  sections,  as  they  now  appear,  a  second  Jehovist 
who  will  satisfy,  at  least  as  well  as  the  second  Elohist,  the  conditions 
of  an  independent  source  ?  Indeed,  it  has  been  actually  done  in 
the  first  and  last  parts  of  Genesis,  and  such  an  hypothesis  is  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  current  theory.  As  soon  as  one  yielded  the  origi- 
nal assumption  that  the  word  Elohim  distinguished  one  source  and 
the  word  Jehovah  another,  there  was  scarcely  a  limit  to  which  an- 
alysis along  these  lines  might  not  readily  be  carried.* 

Throughout  this  brief  sketch  of  the  early  history  of  tlie  criticism, 
we  have  been  conscious  of  limitation  in  the  necessity  of  confining  our 
survey  to  the  book  of  Genesis.  It  began  with  Genesis,  but  soon  spread, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  it  now  covers  a  large  part  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  view  taken  of  Genesis  among  our  critics, 
has,  no  doubt,  been  seriously  affected  at  times,  whether  consciously  or 
not,  by  such  a  connection.     Probably  Vater  would  not  have  gone  so 

*So  Cheyne  {Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criticism,  p.  30)  saj's  :  "The  Yah. 
vists  were,  in  fact,  perhaps  a  school  of  writers." 


20  TEE  FBESBTTEBIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

far  as  he  did  in  his  theory  of  fragments  if  his  view  had  been  confined 
to  Genesis  alone.  Again,  possibly,  there  would  have  been  a  less  ex- 
treme reaction  from  Vater's  theory  in  the  case  of  Ewald  and 
Drechsler  if  their  point  of  view  had  not  been  chiefly  Genesis.  It 
seems  at  least  clear  that  in  the  matter  of  fair  treatment  Genesis  has 
suffered  much  more  than  it  has  gained,  by  being  regarded  as  simply 
one  of  a  class  of  books  similar  in  material,  structure  and  composi- 
tion. This  was  especially  true  in  the  chronological  adjustment  of 
the  supposed  sources  which  was  the  next  problem  of  the  criticism. 

Graf,*  entering  into  the  labors  of  other  critics,  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Levitical  legislation  in  its  present  form  originated 
after  the  Babylonian  exile.  No  special  thought  of  Genesis  was 
then  in  his  mind.  His  attention  was  directed  at  once,  by  more  than 
one  scholarjf  to  the  fact  that,  by  hypothesis,  this  legislation  formed  a 
chief  part  of  one  of  the  great  Elohistic  sources  whose  historical 
material  begins  with  the  opening  chapters  of  the  Bible.  He  ac- 
cepted the  suggestion  and  proceeded  to  adjust  himself  to  it.  "  That 
was  my  mistake,"  he  replied.  "  The  whole  document,  inclusive  of  its 
editorial  additions  " — for  so  he  himself  regarded  this  early  history — 
"  belongs  together  and  should  alike  go  after  the  Exile,  where  I  have 
already  put  its  essential  part."  With  such  relative  haste,  and  on 
such  extrinsic  and  subsidiary  grounds,  this  large  portion  of  Genesis 
was  originally  consigned  to  this  distant  age  with  which  it  apparently 
had  so  little  afl&nity. 

It  was  noted  above  that  with  Vater  and  De  Wette  there  entered 
more  generally  into  the  discussion  of  critical  questions  another  factor 
having  the  value  of  an  axiom,  which  has  since  greatly  affected  all 
conclusions  reached — the  assumption  of  the  legendary  character  of 
earlier  Pentateuchal  narratives,  excepting  possibly  a  substratum  of 
historic  fact.  The  reasoning  of  Graf  and  his  colleagues,  one  of  whom 
was  Kuenen,  was  based  on  such  a  premise.  Hence  they  felt  at 
liberty  to  refer  the  Levitical  laws,  which  by  their  superscription  are 
Mosaic  and  by  their  outward  form  throughout  are  actually  localized 
in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  to  the  time  of  the  Exile. 

This  was  not,  however,  the  only  peculiar  principle  which  was 
operative  with  them.  A  second  mighty  factor  at  about  this  time 
slipped  almost  unperceived  into  the  discussion — the  theory  of  historic 
evolution.  Institutions  grow  ;  they  never  rise  spontaneously.  That 
was  its  watchword.  Laws  for  men  do  not  come  down  from  heaven, 
though  they  have  often  been  thought  to  do  so.     They  spring  up 

*  Die  Oeschichtlichen  Bucher  des  Alten  Testaments,  1866. 

\  Archiv  Jur  musenschaftUche  Forschungen,  i,  p.  466,  etc.  Notably  by 
Riehm,  Stud,  und  Kritikea,  1868,  pp.  350-371).  Cf.  Kuenen,  Ilex.  Introd.,  p. 
xxxiii. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  21 

gradually  and  are  coincident  with  the  popular  need.  At  some  time 
later  still  they  assume  the  form  of  codes.  Bible  institutions  and 
laws  are  no  exception  to  this  rule.  The  so-called  Mosaic  enactments 
are  of  too  developed  a  character  to  be  the  product  of  so  rude  an 
age.  Hence,  if  we  are  to  have  an  orderly  sequence  of  the  history, 
they  must  be  transferred  to  one  more  befitting  their  nature.  This 
is  the  deus  ex  machina.  This  explains,  as  nothing  else  can,  how  so 
tremendous  a  change  of  base  could  take  place  with  so  little  apparent 
reason  or  preparation.  "  Nothing  is  simpler,"  said  one  of  the  later 
critics,*  "  than  the  theory  of  Graf.  It  was  only  needful  to  place  a 
single  original  authority,  which  is  generally  called  the  '  fundamental 
document '  ....  in  the  post-exilic  times,  in  the  days  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  in  order  with  one  blow  to  put  the  '  Mosaic  period '  out 
of  existence."  There  is  a  proverb  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  the 
reformer  Huss  which  seems  to  be  in  point :  "  If  you  have  offended 
a  clergyman,  kill  him  ;  or  else  you  will  never  have  peace  with  him." 
And  there  is  another  preserved  among  the  Jews,  not  inappropriate: 
"  When  the  tale  of  bricks  is  doubled,  that  is,  when  Israel  is  op- 
pressed, Moses  comes."  f 

On  the  basis  of  this  new  adjustment  of  the  documents,  the  current 
form  of  the  critical  analysis  arose.  As  far  as  it  applies  to  Genesis, 
it  is  as  follows :  The  oldest  portions  of  the  book  consist  of  two  prin- 
cipal sources,  a  Jahvist  and  an  Elohist,  together  with  still  earlier 
Jahvistic  fragments.  Their  date  as  actual  compositions  is  put  at 
about  B.C.  800.  A  Jehovist  compiler  united  these  works  into  one. 
The  youngest  portions  of  Genesis  are  represented  by  the  document 
which  begins  the  Bible,  now  generally  known  as  P.  With  many 
critics  chap,  xiv  stands  by  itself  as  of  peculiar  origin.  Subsequent 
to  the  Exile,  an  editor  with  the  style  of  the  latest  work,  united  P 
with  the  already  combined  J  E ;  and,  bating  glosses,  to  him  is  due 
the  form  of  Genesis  as  it  now  is,  including  a  considerable  amount  of 
original  matter.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  theory,  though  including 
the  three  documents  of  Hupfeld,  is,  in  one  respect,  at  a  wide  remove 
from  it.  The  question  of  the  order  of  the  documents,  though  passed 
so  lightly  over  by  Graf  and  his  collaborators,  is  one  of  vital  im- 
portance in  many  respects.  It  involves  within  itself,  indeed,  every 
principle  of  literary  and  historical  criticism.  If  it  were  a  trifling 
thing  to  sunder  from  its  context  one-half  the  matter  of  Genesis  and 
transfer  it  bodily  to  a  period  seven  centuries  away,  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  the  criticism  would  be  unworthy  the  serious  attention  of 
scholars.  That  it  is  not  so  regarded  even  by  critics  is  evidenced  by 
the  fact  that  on  this  very  question,  accepting  the  current  analysis,  in 

*  Duhm,  Die  Theologie  der  Propheten,  p.  17. 
t  Cf.  French,  Lessons  in  Proverbs,  pp.  69,  82. 


22  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

its  general  features,  they  are  divided  into  two  opposing  camps.  No 
inconsiderable  number  among  them,  having  a  reputation  scarcely 
second  to  that  of  Kuenen  and  "Wellhausen,  have  never  ceased  to  re- 
gard Graf's  proceeding  as  a  simple  tour  de  force^  justified  neither  by 
reason  nor  necessity.  They  find  it  impossible,  on  any  fair  critical 
principles,  to  harmonize  this  supposed  relation  of  the  sources  with 
their  actual  contents.  And  this  it  is  which  makes  the  difference  of 
so  great  importance.  It  touches  the  vital  question  of  the  analysis 
as  such  at  a  vital  point.  It  cannot  fail  to  awaken  a  deep  distrust  of 
the  methods  adopted. 

This  completes  our  hasty  sketch  of  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
criticism.  As  will  at  once  appear,  our  object  has  been  less  to  give  a 
minute  and  consecutive  history  of  the  matter  than  to  show  the  rela- 
tion which  its  several  stages  hold  to  one  another  and  to  the  theory 
now  in  vogue.  Critics  of  our  day  often  speak  of  the  generations  of 
similar  work  which  have  preceded  theirs,  whose  fruits  they  now 
enjoy.  They  speak  of  the  principles  they  hold  as  "  dearly  bought," 
being  at  the  expense  of  weary  years  of  toil  and  sacrifice.  Others 
have  labored  and  they  have  entered  into  their  labors.  Pentateuchal 
criticism,  moreover,  it  is  alleged,  has  been  a  growth,  a  true  develop- 
ment :  first  the  blade  in  Simon  and  Astruc,  then  the  ear  in  Hupfeld 
and  Graf,  and  now  the  full  corn  in  the  ear  in  Wellhausen  and 
Driver. 

If  this  were  a  just  representation,  it  would  be  of  considerable  sig- 
nificance. It  would  have  a  direct  bearing  in  favor  of  the  correct- 
ness and  the  permanence  of  the  scheme  of  criticism  now  dominant. 
Our  review  has  clearly  shown  that  it  is  not  just.  There  has  been 
no  real  development.  The  connection  of  the  present  scheme  with 
those  which  have  preceded  is  outward  and  at  a  few  points  ;  not  in- 
ward, organic  and  vital.  Progress  even  in  the  spiral  form,  such  as 
is  sometimes  predicated  of  the  Church,  cannot  be  claimed  ;  the 
criticism  swinging  alternately  from  one  extreme  to  another  with  a 
slow  and  steady  movement  onward  and  upwgird.  Bare  continuity 
has  often  been  singularly  wanting.  It  is  not  denied  that  the  criti- 
cism of  to-day  has  received  a  certain  legacy  from  the  past ;  but  this 
is  mostly  of  a  purely  negative  character.  It  has  been  shown  the  paths 
that  are  not  to  be  followed.  So  far  it  has  a  positive  content.  It  has 
come  to  it  in  a  form  almost  unchanged  and  with  none  of  the  ele- 
ments of  vital  increase  characterizing  a  germinal  force,  moving 
necessarily  and  steadily  onward  towards  bloom  and  fruit.  The 
matter  in  Genesis  to-day  held  to  be  post-Mosaic  is  essentially  that 
pointed  out  by  Aben-Ezra  and  Le  Clerc.  The  terms  Jehovist, 
Elohist  and  Redactor  are  old,  it  is  true,  but  have  become  confusing 
in  the  new  adjustments  and  are  of  questionable  value.     The  list  of 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  23 

duplicate  passages  and  other  literary  data,  made  the  ground  of  the 
analysis,  have  no  doubt  considerably  increased  with  the  lapse  of 
time,  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  many  of  them  have  been  com- 
pelled to  serve  contrary  purposes  by  different  critics  and  once  and 
again  brought  to  support  conclusions  now  held  to  be  false. 

There  are  two  things  and  two  only  which  have  come  down  from 
the  past  that  are  really  important.  These  do  greatly  modify,  may 
even  be  said  to  control  the  criticism  of  our  day ;  but  they  are 
assumptions,  not  facts.  There  is,  first,  the  assumption  that  the 
Bible's  own  account  of  Israel's  religion  is  incredible.  This  pre- 
pares the  way  for  the  second,  that  Israel's  religion  arose  like  other 
religions  about  it.  They  are  the  two  things,  moreover,  which  most 
stand  in  the  way  of  reaching  scientific  results  in  this  direction.  To 
be  scientific,  of  course,  one  may  only  assume  as  a  premise  what  has 
been  proven  to  be  true  or  is  admitted  on  all  sides  to  be  so.  Here 
the  other  party  in  the  debate,  and  the  one  still  in  possession  of  the 
goods,  lays  strenuous  and  unabated  claim  to  the  very  thing  which 
the  new,  Avithout  debate,  assumes  to  be  false.  It  claims  that  the 
account  which  the  Bible  gives  of  itself  is  fact ;  that  Israel's  religion 
did  not  arise  like  other  religions  about  it.  And  it  professes  to  be 
able  to  show  that  while  this  view  is  in  itself  simpler  and  more  nat- 
ural than  any  other  proposed  in  its  place,  it  also  accounts  far  better 
for  the  sum  of  the  phenomena  involved. 

In  conclusion,  now,  glancing  backward  for  a  moment  at  the 
course  of  the  criticism  as  Ave  have  found  it,  we  fail  to  discover  that 
order  and  development  which,  from  current  representations,  we 
had  been  led  to  expect.  On  the  contrary,  it  presents  a  series  of 
opinions  so  mutually  antagonistic  and  self-destructive  that  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  think  of  them  as  consecutive  parts  of  the  same  brief  his- 
tory. To  begin  with  Vater,  it  is  evident  that  he  showed  no  mercy 
either  to  his  predecessors'  methods  or  their  results.  With  precisely 
the  same  data,  he  reached  results  diametrically  opposed  to  theirs. 
Ilgen,  in  turn,  made  use  of  the  divine  names  to  guide  his  analysis 
just  as  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  had  done,  but  differentiated  them 
otherwise,  and  attached  them  to  the  literary  material  in  a  way 
acceptable  to  no  other  critic  before  or  since.  The  third  theory  was 
of  a  more  sturdy  type  than  either  of  those  which  had  gone  before 
it.  Ewald  and  Drechsler,  as  its  precursors,  advocated  a  view  of 
Genesis  which  as  directly  antagonized  that  of  Astruc,  Eichhorn  and 
Ilgen  as  it  did  that  of  Vater  and  Hartmann.  The  best  scholarship 
of  Germany  gave  itself  for  a  long  period  of  time  to  the  discovery 
and  delimitation  of  a  Grundschrift^  a  fundamental  document  sup- 
posed to  lie  at  the  basis  of  Genesis.  The  names  of  Deity  were 
employed  in  connection  with  it  somewhat  as  in  the  theory  of  Astruc 


24  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

and  their  lines  of  division  now  and  then  coincided.  More  often 
they  collided  and  the  essential  principle  of  the  division  was  almost 
entirely  another.  To  Vater's  theory,  of  course,  it  offered  a  polar 
contrast.  After  the  so-called  Orundschrift  had  been  completed  and 
generally  accepted,  Hupfeld  appeared  to  give  it  a  stab  in  its  very 
vitals.  He  denied  that  it  was  anything  of  the  sort  supposed.  It 
was  itself  a  compilation  from  two  exceedingly  unlike  sources. 
Hupfeld's  theory,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  cut  athwart  the 
entire  consensus  of  the  ruling  criticism  and,  in  addition,  brought 
seriously  into  question  the  original  and  most  patent  mark  whereby 
sources  were  distinguished,  the  use  of  the  names  Jehovah  and  Elo- 
him,  displaced  temporarily  its  predecessor.  He  had  won  his  way 
by  a  bold  innovation.  Graf,  who  followed,  outdid  him  in  the  same 
tactics.  He  adopted  Hupfeld's  documents,  but  dislocated  them  in  a 
manner  to  play  havoc  with  almost  every  critical  principle  hitherto 
advocated.  Even  Yater  admitted  a  thread  of  chronological  con- 
nection running  through  his  collection  of  fragments.  Graf  virtually 
denied  any  literary  or  logical  connection  between  a  quarter  of 
Genesis,  taken  out  in  the  form  of  fragments  here  and  there,  and  the 
other  three  quarters,  dating  their  origin  centuries  apart. 

Again,  taking  the  final  outcome  of  this  series  of  critical  efforts 
as  exhibited  in  the  present  theory  of  documents,  and  comparing  it 
with  the  varying  phases  that  have  preceded,  there  is,  perhaps,  an 
even  greater  impression  of  contrariety  made.  The  vital  thing  in 
Astruc's  theory  was  the  absolute  control  of  the  material  given  to 
the  names  of  Deity.  The  present  one  subordinates  these  names  to 
other  and  obscurer  tests,  and  confounds,  beyond  the  recognition  of 
many  critics,  its  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  matter.  The  vital  thing 
in  Vater's  theory  was  the  denial  of  any  real  connection  among  the 
constituent  parts  of  Genesis.  The  present  finds  not  simply  one  con- 
secutive history  therein  but  three,  having  each  an  obvious  and  close 
connection  of  parts.  The  vital  things  in  the  theory  of  supplements 
were,  first,  the  fact  of  its  strictly  homogeneous  Elohistic  basis  of  wide 
extent  and  great  historical  importance ;  second,  that  this  Elohistic 
material  bore  throughout  the  marks  of  the  highest  antiquity;  third, 
that  it  was  the  foundation  of  Genesis,  being  itself  supplemented,  never 
the  reverse.  The  present  theory,  taking  from  this  source  the  larger 
part  of  its  matter,  leaves  it  the  most  jejune  and  uninteresting  of  docu- 
ments, scarcely  more  than  a  bare  coordination  of  genealogies  and  sta- 
tistical statements,  with  scattered  facts  from  the  lives  of  the  patri- 
archs. From  being  the  oldest,  it  makes  it  b}'-  centuries  younger  than 
either  of  its  companion  sources;  from  being  the  supplemented  original, 
it  is  made  an  adjunct  and  suppleraenter.     The  vital  thing  in  Hup- 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  25 

feld's  work  was  his  separation  of  the  second  Elohist  from  the  first, 
in  contravention  of  the  ripest  convictions  of  contemporaneous 
scholarship.  One  of  the  most  serious  problems  of  the  present 
theory,  strange  to  say,  is  to  keep  this  same  second  Elohist  apart  from 
the  Jehovist,  so  strikingly  is  it  said  to  resemble  it  in  material  and 
literary  form.  Finally,  the  most  marked  element  in  the  work  of 
Graf  was  his  removal  of  Hupfeld's  Elohist  primus  to  the  third 
place  in  chronological  and  literary  sequence.  It  represented  a 
movement  in  which  only  a  part  of  those  thus  far  engaged  took 
part.  It  has  left  a  division  in  the  critical  ranks,  which  is  beyond 
the  hope  of  healing ;  a  division  of  such  proportions  and  so  involv- 
ing the  fundamental  canons  of  critical  judgment  as  hitherto  applied, 
that  along  with  the  so-called  consensus  should  always,  in  fairness,  be 
named  the  dissensus  of  Pentateuchal  criticism  in  the  present  day. 

McCoRMicK  Theological  Seminary.  Edwin  Cone  BisselL. 


OBJECTIOISrS   TO    APOSTOLIC    AUTHORSHIP 

OR  SANCTION  AS  THE  ULTIMATE 

TEST  OF  CANONICITY. 

IN  a  former  paper  the  present  writer  sought  to  show  that  apos- 
tolic origin  or  sanction  is  the  only  valid  test  of  the  canonicity 
of  a  writing  *  In  his  opening  paragraph  he  called  attention  to  the 
objections  so  confidently  urged  against  this  position,  and  intimated 
a  purpose  to  examine  them.  Unforeseen  and  unavoidable  delays 
have  prevented  the  execution  of  that  purpose  until  the  present 
time. 

Pkeliminary  Considerations. 

Before  considering  particular  objections,  it  will  be  proper  to 
ask  the  reader's  attention  to  some  propositions,  the  relevancy  and 
importance  of  which  will  be  seen  as  soon  as  stated,  and  will  become 
more  and  more  manifest  as  the  discussion  proceeds. 

I.  It  will  be  found  that  most,  if  not  all,  the  objections  urged  grow 
out  of  a  wrong  conception  and  definition  of  the  term  Canon.  For 
instance,  if  we  define  the  Canon  as  "  a  list  or  catalogue  setting  forth 
what  books  are  inspired,"!  it  will  be  comparatively  easy  to  fall  into 
the  Komish  error  that  ecclesiastical  sanction  is  the  ultimate  test  of 
canonicity.  For,  if  there  be  a  body  authorized  to  set  forth  a  list  or 
catalogue  of  inspired  books,  then  there  arise  two  questions  only: 
Where  is  the  body  possessed  of  this  authority  ?  and.  What  books 
does  it  include  in  its  list  ?  The  inquirer  might  not  find  it  easy  to 
obtain  an  answer  to  the  first  question.  Tli'at  answered,  however,  his 
difficulties  would  be  at  an  end.  The  same  remark  applies,  if  we 
adopt  the  definition  of  Dr.  Gladden.  He  says :  "  This  word  (^.  e., 
Canon)  as  used  in  this  connection  means  simply  an  authoritative 
list  or  catalogue.  The  Canon  of  the  Bible  is  the  determined  and 
of&cial  table  of  contents.":}:  If  so,  we  have  only  to  find  the  party 
or  the  Church  which  has  the  authority  to  draw  up  such  a  catalogue, 

*  Vide  The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  April,  1893,  p.  246. 
t  Bishop  Lynch  :  vide  Thornwell's  Collected  Wi'itings,  Vol.  iii,  p.  754. 
X  Who  Wrote  the  Bible  ?  p.  298. 


THE  FORMATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  261 

stone ;  railroads  must  transport  these  to  their  destination ;  labor- 
ers must  excavate  the  ground  ;  masons  trim  and  set  the  stone ;  car- 
penters throw  the  beams  and  joists,  and  a  score  of  other  kinds  of 
workmen  must  contribute  their  shares  to  the  final  result.  But  when 
the  building  is  at  last  complete,  we  turn  to  the  architect  and  super- 
intendent, whose  intelligence  devised  and  directed  every  part  of  the 
structure,  and  congratulate  him  on  the  building  he  has  given  us. 
In  a  much  more  real  sense  does  the  New  Testament  appear  to  be  the 
work  of  a  Spiritual  Architect  and  Superintendent ;  and  when  we 
have  traced  its  historical  formation,  and  compare  the  result  with 
the  needs  of  men,  our  conclusion  can  only  be,  This  is  indeed  both 
the  Work  and  the  Word  of  God. 
/  i 

Princeton.    /  !      -  GEORGE  T.  PURVES. 


n       ^       1 

Edlwi'm    Cor\€  ^i^^«^' 


ORIGIN     AND    COMPOSITION    OF    GENESIS. 

CURRENT  THEORY  OF  THE  ORIGIN  AND  STRUCTURE 
OF  GENESIS. 

AS  shown  in  the  preceding  paper,*  the  theory  of  the  origin  and 
structure  of  Genesis,  now  most  widely  current  among  Euro- 
pean critics,  is  that  it  is  principally  a  compilation  from  three 
sources.  They  may  be  named,  in  harmony  with  common  usage,  J, 
E  and  P,  the  last  letter  standing  for  the  Priests'  code,  so  called  on 
account  of  the  priestly  laws  of  the  middle  books  found  in  it.  In 
Genesis  it  is  identified  with  what  we  have  hitherto  known  as  the 
first  Elohist.  It  is  claimed  that  none  of  these  sources  originated, 
in  a  written  form,  before  the  tenth  century  B.C.,  the  date  for  J  and 
E  varying,  with  different  critics,  between  1000  and  800  and  being 
sometimes  carried  even  lower.  On  the  other  hand,  the  point  of 
time  fixed  by  Wellhausen,  representing  the  dominant  school,  for 
the  promulgation  of  P  as  a  whole,  is  444  B.C. 

There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  critics  as  to  the  chrono- 
logical order  of  the  first  two  documents,  whether  it  should  be  J,  E, 
or  E,  J,  though  this  is  a  matter  relatively  unimportant,  since  the 
great  majority  agree  that  they  arose  at  about  the  same  time.  It  is 
not  necessary  in  our  consideration  of  Genesis  by  itself  to  enter 
largely  into  this  subject  of  the  dates  of  supposed  documents.  We 
are  more  particularly  concerned  with  the  analysis ;  but  the  two 
subjects  are  more  or  less  involved  in  each  other,  a  post-Mosaic  and 
relatively  late  date  for  all  the  documents  being  a  necessary  corollary 
to  the  acceptance  of  the  analysis  in  its  present  form. 

Now,  at  the  outset,  it  is  a  perfectly  fair,  and  indeed  necessary, 
inquiry  whether  there  were  likely  to  be  current  in  Israel  during 
the  periods  named,  or  at  any  other  time,  documents  of  this  sort ; 
and  if  so,  whether  it  is  probable  that  they  were  combined  in  the 
way  supposed.  We  shall  consider  these  questions  before  taking  up 
the  principal  arguments  by  which  the  theory  is  supported. 

Once  more,  then,  and  in  brief,  the  current  theory  may  be  stated 
as  follows  :     There  were  three  narratives  of  Israel's  early  history, 

*  The  Pkesbytekiax  and  Reformed  Review,  Jauuary,  1895,  pp.  1  sq. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSJllON  OF  GENESIS.  263 

covering  much  the  same  ground,  which  arose  centuries  after  most 
of  the  events  they  profess  to  record,  two  of  them  from  three  to 
five,  and  one  of  them  eight  centuries.  From  these  histories  our 
present  Genesis  was  compiled.  The  compilation  was  begun  about 
the  eighth  or  ninth  century  and  completed  after  the  middle  of  the 
fifth. 

Over  against  this  theory  let  certain  facts  be  noted.  It  is  at 
present  admitted,  on  all  sides,  that  the  art  of  writing  was  well 
known  as  early  as  the  Mosaic  period.  Hence  there  was  no  neces- 
sity on  that  account  for  a  delay  in  the  record.  Neither  was  it 
because  of  a  lack  of  interest  on  Israel's  part  in  its  own  history  ;  for 
such  interest  is  everywhere  apparent.  Still  further  there  is  an 
extended  list  of  lost  writings,  more  than  a  score  in  all,  quoted  or 
referred  to  in  the  Old  Testament,  including  all  kinds  of  literature, 
especially  histories.  Some  of  them  cover  the  very  period  in  which 
our  three  are  supposed  to  have  arisen.  To  no  one  of  the  three  has 
there  been  discovered  the  remotest  reference.  That  the  earlier  and 
later  kings  kept  annals  of  the  events  of  their  reigns  and  preserved 
them  with  the  greatest  care  there  is  no  doubt.  There  is  just  as 
little  doubt  that  the  prophets,  in  addition  to  their  prophecies,  wrote 
histories  of  their  times.  It  is  also  clear,  whatever  may  be  thought 
of  the  Pentateuch,  that  several  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
compilations  from  various  sources.  But  in  all  cases,  as  far  as  we 
know,  the  sources  are  particularly  named  in  the  compilations  made 
from  them.  It  would  be  wholly  contrary  to  analogy,  therefore,  to 
expect  works  of  this  kind  to  be  made  on  any  other  plan,  particu- 
larly at  so  late  a  period  as  from  800  to  400  B.C.  It  must  accord- 
ingly be  looked  upon  as  a  suspicious  circumstance  that  Genesis  and 
its  companion  books,  if  compiled,  were  compiled  without  formal 
reference  to  authorities,  and  that  although  a  score  of  lost  works 
are  cited  in  the  Old  Testament  the  existence  of  no  one  of  our  three, 
or  anything  like  them,  is  anywhere  hinted  at.  The  later  their  ori- 
gin is  put,  the  more  mysterious  do  these  facts  become. 

There  is  another  fact  of  importance.  A  comparison  of  the  three 
alleged  sources  of  Genesis  shows  the  most  remarkable  correspon- 
dence among  them  as  to  the  chrocological  order  of  occurrences. 
This  is  most  strikingly  illustrated  in  J  and  E,  which  are  the  fullest  ; 
but  is  also  observable  in  the  outline  of  P  preserved  to  us.  How 
did  it  happen  that  all  three  adopted  in  this  respect,  as  far  as  they 
go,  precisely  the  same  literary  form  ?  A  single  thread  of  narrative 
appears  in  all,  running  from  Abraham  to  Isaac  and  from  Isaac  to 
Jacob  and  from  Jacob  to  Joseph,  who  is  unanimously  made  gover- 
nor of  Egypt  and  the  rescuer  of  his  family.  This  connection  of 
the  sources  is  not  a  matter  of  main  features  simply,  but  extends  to 


264  2'HE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

single  incidents.  Step  bj  step  through  Abraham's  history  and  that 
of  Jacob  in  Haran  and  of  Joseph  in  Egypt,  J  and  E  take  up  the 
same  events  and  make  them  follow  one  another  in  the  same 
sequence  and  logical  dependence.  This  is  equally  true  of  P  at 
points  where  he  touches  the  history.  In  fact,  it  is  this  circum- 
stance chiefly  that  makes  it  possible  for  our  critics  to  divide  the 
text  into  three  so-called  parallel  accounts.  It  is  strange  that  it  has 
not  occurred  to  them  to  ask  whether  it  is  at  all  probable  that  three 
independent  histories  would  be  constructed  on  a  method  showing 
such  a  striking  and  universal  likeness.  A  far  more  natural  postu- 
late would  seem  to  be,  under  the  condition  in  which  they  are 
found,  that  the  three  supposed  histories  are  really  mutually  sup- 
plementary parts  of  one  and  the  same  history,  and  if  it  be  not  our 
present  Genesis,  it  must  have  been  an  original  work  extremely 
like  it.* 

Again,  supposing  that  there  were  three  parallel  accounts  of  the 
same  events,  arranged  in  the  same  order,  actually  combined  in 
Genesis,  how  is  their  existence  severally  to  be  explained  ?  Works  of 
this  sort  are  not  written  to-day  without  a  reason  ;  much  less  could 
they  be  expected  to  arise  without  one  in  the  times  of  Jeroboam  II 
or  the  Exile.  What  then  was  the  motif  behind  each  ?  We  have 
seen  already  how  the  historical  matter  given  to  P  came  to  be 
assigned  to  the  Exile  by  Graf.  It  was  only  as  an  after-thought 
and  under  the  compulsion  of  his  theory.  He  did  not  look  upon  it 
as  in  itself  a  connected  history  ;  but  as  merely  prefatory  editorial 
matter.  And  Graf  was  right.  It  is  not  a  history.  It  is  safe  to 
say  that  it  is  wholly  unlikely  that  any  one  at  the  time  of  the  Exile 
would  have  set  out  to  write  a  work  of  the  importance  of  P  with 
such  an  introduction.  It  is  a  bare  projection  without  the  filling. 
It  is  an  imperfect  skeleton  without  flesh  and  blood  to  complete  or 
make  significant  the  organism. 

It  begins  with  an  account  of  the  creation,  which  is  both  dispro- 
portionate and  has  little  direct  bearing  on  the  main  theme.  It  is 
largely  made  up  of  genealogical  lists,  which  we  could  understand 
as  the  foundation  of  a  national  history,  but  which  are  out  of  place 
as  preparatory  to  laws  of  worship.  As  the  document  now  appears 
in  Genesis,  the  life  of  Abraham  has  no  propor  beginning  and  con- 
tains no  clear  evidence  of  the  purpose  of  his  being  in  Canaan.  Far 
too  much  prominence  is  given  relatively  to  Lot,  Ishmael  and  Esau, 
with  their  families.      Isaac's  birth  is  unnoticed,  and   there  is  no 

*Prof.  Mead  calls  attentioa  to  the  following  circumstance  (Journal  of  Sacred 
Literature,  Vol.  x,  Part  i,  p.  50):  Tiie  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  LXX. 
exhibit  no  variation  in  the  text.  The  LXX.,  however,  indicates  variation  in  the 
books  of  Samuel  and  Jeremiah.  Within  a  century,  tlierefore,  after  the  recen- 
sion was  made  the  older  writings  were  completely  lost. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  265 

record  of  any  divine  appearance  or  pronaise  to  him.  Jacob's  life 
in  Paddan-aram,  including  his  marriage  and  the  birth  of  his  chil- 
dren, is  passed  over  in  silence.  Joseph  is  abruptly  introduced  as 
being  in  Egypt  without  explanation  of  how  he  came  to  be  there. 
A  few  sentences  only  are  devoted  to  the  entire  contents  of  the  last 
twelve  chapters  of  the  book.  These  are  logically  disconnected, 
unintelligible  without  the  accompanying  matter,  and  suggest  but 
the  slightest  connection  with  such  a  work  as  the  Priests'  code 
should  be. 

Some  critics,  it  is  true,  allege  that  this  document  was  originally 
fuller  than  it  now  is,  and  contained,  in  substance,  much  of  the  matter 
now  found  in  the  others.  This  is  a  wholly  unsupported  allegation. 
Were  it  true,  it  would  serve  to  bring  critics  only  the  more  com- 
pletely into  the  difficulty  just  noticed,  that  of  postulating  three 
documents  of  like  contents,  arranged  in  the  same  chronological 
order  throughout,  to  supplant  a  book  of  the  acknowledged  external 
unity  of  Genesis.  Supposing  then  that  the  antecedent  history  of  P 
contained  in  Genesis  is  with  reference  to  its  legislation,  we  must  say 
that  it  is  not  to  the  point.  It  has  no  real  growth,  only  stages.  It 
is  said,  indeed,  that  a  progressive  revelation  in  P  is  shown  in  the 
institution  of  the  Sabbath,  followed  by  the  Noachic  covenant,  the 
law  of  bloodshed  and  circumcision,  all  contained  in  it.  It  is  true, 
however,  only  as  the  intervening  history  of  J  is  taken  into  account. 
Each  of  its  ten  sections  is  introduced  by  the  same  formula  :  "These 
are  the  generations."  The  code  is  distinctively  religious,  ritualistic, 
and  adapted  to  a  congregation ;  the  introduction  is  chronological, 
discursively  genealogical  and  statistical,  with  only  remote  sugges- 
tions of  religion  and,  as  the  critics  say,  no  worship  whatsoever. 

Of  the  two  other  works,  by  hypothesis  concerned  in  the  compila- 
tion, there  is  much  in  dispute.  First,  the  place  of  their  origin  sev- 
erally ;  secondly,  to  which  the  priority  belongs ;  thirdly,  and  most 
important,  the  matter  that  is  to  be  referred  to  each.  It  is  seriously 
discussed  whether  one  or  both  originated  in  the  northern  kingdom. 
Dillmann,  Kittel  and  Riehm  claim  that  E  preceded  J;  Kueuen, 
Wellhausen  and  Stade,  the  contrary.  Ndldeke,  Driver,  Strack, 
and  many  others,  while  holding  to  the  existence  of  two  such  sources, 
confess  that  the  task  of  distinguishing  them  from  one  another  is 
beyond  them.  Strack,  in  the  Preface  to  his  recent  Commentary  on 
Genesis,  declares  that  "  to  separate  J  and  E  is,  at  present  at  least, 
absolutely  impossible."  This  fact  is  all  the  more  important  that  on 
their  existence  as  distinct  sources  depends  the  validity  of  the  pre- 
vailing theory  of  documents  over  against  that  of  supplements  which 
it  superseded ;  and  indeed  the  distinction  between  Elohistic  and 
Jehovistic  sources  after  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Genesis. 
18 


266  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

No  good  purpose  would  be  served  by  an  attempt  on  our  part  to 
harmonize  these  conflicting  views.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  if 
there  were  two  such  works,  so  nearly  alike  in  contents,  order  and 
style  that  the  most  acute  German  and  English  critics  despair  of  dis- 
criminating one  from  the  other,  and  they  arose  at  about  the  same 
time  in  the  same  neighborhood,  at  least  in  the  same  limited  circle, 
the  occasion  for  both  is  not  apparent.  We  do  not  say  that  their 
separate  existence  is  impossible,  but  that  it  is  improbable.  That 
one  prefers  Elohim  as  a  title  for  God  is  no  sufficient  reason ;  and 
just  as  little  the  fact  that  the  Elohist  presents,  if  he  does,  a  nobler 
conception  of  God ;  makes  Him  appear  in  dreams  (xx.  3)  ;  act 
through  the  ministry  of  angels  (xxi.  17) ;  represents  Abram  as  a 
prophet  and  intercessor  (xx.  7) ;  mentions  Jacob  as  putting  away 
the  strange  gods  and  amulets  (xxxv.  4) ;  shows  an  antiquarian  interest 
(xxxv.  19) ;  and,  although  he  has  much  to  say  of  Beersheba  in  the 
south,  generally  makes  his  stories  of  the  patriarchs  centre  around 
the  sacred  places  of  northern  Israel. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  if  we  look  upon  the  sources,  over  against 
P,  as  essentially  one,  as  is  common,  we  are  not  free  of  difficulties. 
It  must  be  admitted  that  JB  supplies  just  the  literary  and  espe- 
cially the  ethical  material  required  to  fill  up  in  P  what  is  otherwise, 
as  we  have  shown,  bare  projection ;  to  clothe  a  mere  skeleton  with 
the  flesh  and  blood  needful  to  make  it  a  thing  of  life  and  meaning. 
While,  taken  by  itself,  it  almost  wholly  lacks  the  unity,  definiteness 
of  aim  and  progression  of  thought  which  characterize  proper  his- 
tory. It  is  significant  that  the  critics  themselves  are  wont  to  speak 
of  it  as  a  collection  of  stories  or,  as  many  say,  myths  and  legends, 
concerning  the  patriarchs. 

But  we  are  not  yet  done  with  our  preliminary  inquiry  whether 
documents  of  this  sort  are  likely  to  have  arisen  in  Israel  at  the 
periods  named  or  at  any  other  time.  We  have  seen  that  with 
respect  to  theme,  general  contents  and  order  of  presentation,  there 
is  extraordinary  agreement  among  them  ;  an  agreement  so  remark- 
able as  to  make  the  proposed  theory  of  their  origin  on  that  account 
improbable.  An  even  more  surprising  circumstance  is  their  dis- 
agreement in  matters  of  detail.  The  number  of  discrepancies  and 
contradictions  they  contain,  when  taken  out  of  their  present  setting 
and  looked  upon  as  separate  documents,  is  simply  prodigious. 
Genesis  regarded  as  essentially  a  unit  presents  difficulties,  and  difficul- 
ties, to  some  extent,  of  the  same  kind.  They  are  almost  infinites- 
simal  when  compared  with  those  which  a  division  into  three  sources 
compels  us  to  face.  Let  it  be  noted,  moreover,  that  no  eftbrt  is 
made  by  the  adherents  of  the  theory  to  conceal  or  belittle  these  dis- 
agreements.    With  the  exception  of  a  few  scholars  like  Strack,  they 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  267 

are  not  only  zealously  culled  out  and  displayed  ;  they  are  made  a 
leading  part  of  the  evidence  in  support  of  the  theory.  The  follow- 
ing examples  are  taken  exclusively  from  the  published  works  of 
critics  supporting  this  form  of  the  analysis,  and  to  some  extent  are 
presented  in  their  own  language.* 

We  begin  with  the  accounts  of  the  creation  of  which  we  are  said 
to  have  two,  one  each  from  P  and  J  f  (i-ii.  4'',  ii.  4:''-25).  P's 
account,  it  is  claimed,  proceeds  from  lower  to  higher  forms  of  life. 
J's,  on  the  contrary,  starts  with  the  highest;  according  to  him  man 
first  appeared,  then  vegetation,  and  then  the  animals.  In  P  there 
is  a  superabundance  of  water  at  the  beginning,  which  must  be  re- 
moved before  vegetation  is  possible :  in  J  there  is  too  little ;  the 
earth  is  an  arid  plain,  and  water  must  be  first  produced.  In  P  man 
and  woman  are  created  together ;  so  much  together,  it  is  said,  as  to 
lead  some  to  suppose  the  writer  meant  to  describe  a  single  individ- 
ual as  combining  the  peculiarities  of  both  sexes.  In  J  woman  is 
formed  the  last  of  the  series,  after  the  animals.  In  P  man  is  made 
in  God's  image  and  given  supremacy  over  the  earth  at  once.  In  J 
(chaps,  ii,  iii)  it  is  a  sin  for  him  to  seek  to  be  as  God,  and  he  is  ex- 
pected to  reach  supremacy  only  after  deterioration  and  degradation. 

The  second  section  to  be  considered  is  concerned,  principally, 
with  a  genealogy  (chaps,  iv,  v).  Unlike  that  just  noted, 
where  the  same  event  is  said  to  be  duplicated,  here,  what  was 
originally,  as  supposed,  an  identical  list  of  names  is  incorrectly  given 
to  two  different  ancestors :  to  Cain  by  J,  to  Seth  by  P.  It  is  true 
that  there  are  only  two  names  alike  in  the  separate  lists,  and  they 
appear  in  a  different  connection ;  but  this  is  a  slight  obstacle.  The 
differences  are  held  to  be  sufl&cient  only  to  show  that  the  names 
passed  through  different  hands.  Be  that  as  it  may,  these  are  the 
names  and  the  discrepancies  the  theory  involves  :  Cain,  Enoch,  Irad, 
Mehujael,  Methushael,  Lamech,  Jabal,  Jubal,  Tubal  in  J;  Kenan, 
Mahalalel,  Jared,  Enoch,  Methuselah,  Lamech,  Noah,  Shem,  Ham, 
Japheth  in  P.  Furthermore  "  the  section  iv.  2-16  relates,"  it  is 
said,  "  how  Cain  becomes  a  murderer,  a  fugitive,  an  outcast  from 
the  society  of  men,  dreading  even  to  meet  men,  a  typical  nomad  ;  iv. 
17-24,  on  the  other  hand,  presents  Cain  as  an  agriculturalist,  build- 
ing a  city  (vs.  17,  18),  as  if  there  never  had  been  an  event  like  that 
narrated  in  verses  2-16." 

We  next  come  to  the  narrative  of  the  Flood.  There  are  through- 
out, it  is  said,  parallel  accounts  from  P  and  J ;  though  they  clash 

*Cf.  especially  Hehraica  from  1888  Harper's  articles  on  "The  Pentateuchal 
Question." 

t  We  follow  here  as  elsewhere  the  analysis  of  Kautzsch  and  Socin  :  Die  Genesis 
mit  Aeusserer  Unterscheidunrj  der   Quellenschriften,  etc.,  zweite  Aufl.,  1891. 


268  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

at  every  turn.  According  to  P,  the  Flood  is  caused  by  convulsions 
of  nature;  according  to  J,  by  an  extraordinary  rain.  According  to 
P,  it  began  in  Noah's  600tli  year ;  according  to  J,  "  after  seven 
days."  According  to  P,  the  waters  prevail  150  days ;  according  to 
J,  -iO  days.  According  to  P,  they  disappear  at  the  end  of  a  full 
year  from  the  beginning ;  according  to  J,  after  about  a  hundred 
days.  The  ark  of  one  has  an  immovable  lighting  system  ;  of  the 
other,  a  window  which  can  be  opened  and  shut.  One  has  a  door  in 
the  side  ;  to  the  other  there  is  ingress  and  egress,  apparently,  over 
the  top,  for  which  there  is  a  covering  provided.  One  reckons  the 
animals  received  by  twos,  male  and  female  ;  the  other  by  sevens, 
clean  and  unclean.  One  makes  the  Flood  universal,  reaching  above 
the  highest  mountains;  the  other,  local  and  limited.  We  take  no 
account  here,  as  we  have  not  before,  of  supposed  differences  of  style 
and  theological  conception;  but  simply  enumerate  the  more  obvious 
ones  connected  with  the  literary  presentation. 

The  next  section  extends  from  chap.  ix.  20  to  xii.  5.  The 
literary  difficulties  and  discrepancies  which  the  advocates  of  the 
analysis  find  here,  should  the  matter  be  divided  as  required,  are 
numerous.  At  the  beginning,  Noah  is  represented  as  a  husband- 
man cultivating  the  vine,  a  role,  it  is  said,  quite  distinct  from  that 
of  navigator  filled  by  him  in  previous  chapters.  The  actions  of 
his  sons,  in  view  of  the  patriarch's  drunkenness,  is  characterized  as 
that  of  boys  rather  than  of  married  men  over  a  hundred  years  old, 
the  irrelevances  being  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  but  one  tent  is 
assigned  to  father  and  sons.  Noah's  utterance  of  a  curse  on  an 
innocent  person,  the  son  of  the  true  offender,  is  claimed  to  be  due 
to  a  jumble  of  difi'erent  strata  in  the  same  document.  In  harmony 
with  iv.  16-24,  the  three  sons  of  Lamech  are  made  the  fathers  of 
the  new  world  ;  while  in  chap,  x  it  is  the  three  sons  of  Noah. 
Moreover,  chap,  x  regards  the  nations  as  already  settled  "after 
their  families,  after  their  tongues,"  etc.,  while  in  chap,  xi  the 
whole  process  of  dispersion  "  and  differentiation  of  language  which 
has  been  accomplished  in  one  way  is  (now)  done  over  again  in  quite 
a  different  way."  According  to  P,  Abrara  got  into  Canaan  by  the 
perfectly  natural  process  of  accompanying  his  father  who  started  to 
emigrate  thither ;  according  to  J,  there  was  an  extraordinary  call 
of  God  to  the  patriarch  to  go  while  he  was  yet  in  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees. 

In  the  next  division  (xii.  6-17),  the  life  of  Abram  is  continued 
to  the  birth  of  Ishmael.  Here  P  knows  of  no  quarrel  between 
Abram  and  Lot ;  they  separate  simply  for  want  of  room,  and 
Sarai  has  no  diificulty  with  Hagar.  J,  however,  is  interested  in  the 
domestic  difficulties  of  the  patriarchs.     P  says  nothing  of  Sarai's 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  269 

connection  with  a  foreign  court ;  J  gives  two  such  accounts,  and 
there  is  another  in  E,  P  locates  Abram  in  the  Land  of  Canaan  ; 
J,  by  the  "  oaks  of  Mamre."  According  to  P,  Lot  settles  in  the 
cities  of  the  Plain  ;  according  to  J,  in  the  plain  of  the  Jordan.  Ac- 
cording to  P,  Abram  names  Ishmael  (xvi.  15) ;  according  to  J,  it  is 
the  mother  (xvi.  11).  J's  account  of  Abram's  journey  to  Egypt 
also  is  claimed  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  dates  of  P  ;  and  it  is  said 
that  the  supposition  that  a  woman  over  sixty-five  years  of  age 
"  could  so  charm  the  Egyptian  court  as  to  endanger  her  husband's 
life  is  inconceivable."  In  the  announcement  of  Isaac's  birth,  P's 
account  makes  Abram,  now  become  Abraham,  laugh  (xvii.  17);  in 
J,  it  is  Sarah  who  laughs  (xviii.  12).  According  to  P,  Abraham  is 
too  old  to  beget  a  child  (xvii.  17) ;  according  to  J,  the  trouble  is 
with  the  age  of  Sarah  (xviii.  11,  12).  As  to  Lot's  deliverance,  P 
says  it  was  for  Abraham's  sake  (xviii.  29) ;  J,  because  of  Lot's  own 
goodness,  that  is,  his  hospitality  (xix.  1-3).  P  represents  that  Lot 
was  rescued  out  of  the  midst  of  the  catastrophe  to  Sodom  (xviii.  29) ; 
J,  that  it  was  before  it  began  (xviii.  22-2-1).  In  P,  God  destroys 
the  cities  directly  (xix.  29) ;  in  J,  through  natural  means  (xix.  24). 

Chap,  xiv,  taken  by  itself,  has  the  following  inconsistencies.  It 
introduces  Lot  as  in  Sodom,  but  knows  nothing  of  the  city's  wick- 
edness. Abraham,  who  is  in  such  terror  for  his  life  in  Egypt,  is  now 
so  much  a  hero  that  he  risks  his  life  even  for  a  nephew  and  con- 
quers the  combined  forces  of  four  mighty  kings.  He  is  also  called 
"  the  Hebrew,"  as  though  never  heard  of  before.  Even  Jerusalem 
is  mentioned  :  for  that  is  what  is  meant  by  Salem  (ver.  18). 

Chaps,  xviii-xxiii.  carry  on  the  narrative  to  the  death  of  Sarah. 
P  has  not  much  material,  excepting  the  bargain  for  the  cave  of 
Machpelah ;  but  the  new  document  E  begins  with  chap.  xx.  It  is 
said  to  offer  a  new  version  of  Abraham's  journey  to  Egypt,  as  we 
have  before  noted,  as  well  as  of  Sarah's  relations  to  Hagar,  and  one 
that  is  quite  incompatible  with  what  has  gone  before.  Sarah  is 
much  too  old  for  the  occurrence  described  as  taking  place  at  the 
court  of  Abimelech  (chap.  xx).  In  the  matter  of  Hagar's  banish- 
ment, E  represents  that  she  was  driven  out  (xxi.  10) ;  J,  that  she  fled 
voluntarily  (xvi.  6).  One,  that  she  leaves  with  Ishmael  on  her 
shoulder,  although  he  is  seventeen  years  old  (xxi.  14,  LXX.) ;  the 
other,  that  at  this  time  he  is  still  unborn.  One  makes  Ishmael  the 
cause ;  the  other,  Hagar  herself.  In  one,  Abraham  is  the  immediate 
occasion  of  her  going  away  ;  in  the  other,  Sarah.  In  one,  the  angel 
calls  down  to  her  from  heaven  as  she  faints  in  the  wilderness  ;  in  the 
other  he  meets  her  on  the  road  thither.  In  one,  she  is  found  at  the 
well ;  in  the  other,  she  herself  finds  the  well. 

In  chap,  xix-xxviii.   9  the  history  is  carried  on  to  the  point 


270  TEE  FRESBTTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

of  Jacob's  departure  for  Haran.  As  compared  with  J  E,  P,  as  be- 
fore, knows  nothing  of  family  difficulties.  Jacob  receives  his  bless- 
ing, because  he  is  going  away  ;  he  goes  away  because  his  parents 
do  not  wish  him  to  marry  in  the  neighborhood.  There  is  no  cheat- 
ing or  rivalry  between  him  and  Esau  and  no  hatred  or  fear 
engendered. 

The  experiences  of  Jacob  in  Haran  are  given  in  chaps,  xxviii.  10- 
xxxiii.  17.  There  is  too  little  of  P  for  extended  comparison  ;  but 
J  and  E  supply  the  lack.  One  represents'  the  appearance  to  Jacob 
at  Bethel  as  a  theophany ;  the  other,  as  a  dream.  In  one,  Jacob 
asks  for  the  dotted  and  spotted  among  the  cattle ;  in  the  other, 
Laban  proffers  them  with  the  hope  of  getting  the  better  of  his  son- 
in-law.  In  one,  Esau  answers  Jacob's  messages,  by  coming  with  a 
troop;  in  the  other,  he  appears  for  purposes  of  reconciliation. 
Jacob's  extraordinary  timidity  respecting  Esau  (J)  is  characterized 
as  out  of  harmony  with  his  courage  in  wrestling  with  a  heavenly 
visitant  (E). 

The  next  division  of  the  text  carries  us  to  the  beginning  of 
Joseph's  history  (chaps,  xxxiii.  18-xxxvii.  1).  The  only  conflict 
is  between  P  and  J  E  ;  but  that  is  sufficiently  remarkable.  In  the 
story  of  Dinah's  seduction,  Hamor's  coming  to  talk  with  Jacob,  and 
especially  with  his  sons  (P),  after  the  outrage  (J),  is  regarded  as  pre- 
posterous ;  also,  that  one  proposition  should  be  made  by  Hamor  (P) 
and  another  by  his  son  (J).  In  xxxv.  10  (P),  Jacob's  new  name, 
Israel,  is  said  to  have  been  given  him  in  Bethel ;  in  xxxii.  28  (J), 
at  Peniel.  In  xxxv.  15  (P),  Jacob  gives  its  name  to  Bethel  in  com- 
ing from  Mesopotamia  ;  in  xxviii.  19  (J),  on  going  there.  In  one 
(xxxv.  23-26),  Benjamin  was  born  in  Paddan-aram ;  in  the  other 
(xxxv.  16-18,  JE),  on  the  way  from  it.  According  to  one  (xxxv.  27- 
29),  Isaac  lived  till  Jacob's  return ;  according  to  the  other  (xxvii. 
1, 2, 4,  7, 10),  he  was  on  his  death-bed  when  he  left  home.  Accord- 
ing to  P  (xxxvi.  6-8),  Esau  left  Canaan  for  Edom  after  Isaac's 
death  ;  according  to  J  (xxvii.  41-44),  before  it. 

In  Joseph's  early  history  (chaps,  xxxvii.  2-xli.  57),  there  are 
but  two  complete  verses  assigned  to  P.  The  discrepancies  between 
J  and  E  are  as  follows :  The  cause  of  the  trouble  with  the  brethren 
in  one  source  is  Jacob's  partiality  (xxxvii.  4) ;  in  the  other,  Joseph's 
dream  (xxxvii.  11).  In  one,  he  is  sent  to  Shechem  and  finds  his 
brethren  there;  in  the  other,  be  learns  on  the  way  that  they  are  in 
Dothan,  and  finds  them  there.'^"  According  to  E,  it  is  Eeuben  who 
saves  Joseph's  life  (xxxvii.  22) ;  according  to  J,  it  is  Judah  (xxxvii. 
26).  The  former  represents  that  the  Midianites  steal  him  and  carry 
him    to   Egypt ;    the   other,    that   Ishmaelites   buy  him  from  his 

*  The  two  sources  are  not  separated  by  Kautzsch  and  Socin. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  271 

brethren.  The  Ishmaelites  sell  him  to  an  Egyptian  ;  the  Midianites, 
to  Potiphar,  According  to  J,  Joseph's  master  imprisons  him,  because 
of  trouble  with  his  mistress  ;  according  to  E,  he  is  simply  appointed 
to  service  in  the  prison.  In  J,  Joseph  is  brought  to  the  notice  of 
Pharaoh,  directly  through  the  mediation  of  his  friend,  the  butler ; 
according  to  E,  it  is  through  the  dream  of  Pharaoh. 

In  the  continuation  of  Joseph's  history  (chaps,  xlii.  1-xlvi.  34), 
P's  material  again  consists  of  but  two  verses  (xlvi.  6, 7).  The 
discrepancies  between  J  and  E  are  as  follows:  The  former  rep- 
resents that  the  restored  money  is  found  on  the  way  home  at  the 
inn ;  the  latter,  after  reaching  home,  when  all  are  much  astonished 
and  frightened.  According  to  the  former,  Judah  offers  himself  as 
surety  and  advocate  for  Benjamin ;  according  to  the  latter,  it  is 
Eeuben.  The  former  makes  Joseph  speak  of  his  brethren  as  selling 
him  ;  the  latter  refers  to  it  as  merely  an  act  of  providence. 

The  last  section  of  Genesis  includes  chaps,  xlvii.  1-1.  26.  Here 
P  appears  in  greater  strength.  Compared  with  JE,  he  has  (xlvii.  5, 
etc.),  it  is  claimed,  an  awkward  repetition  of  the  arrival  and  settle- 
ment of  Jacob's  family  in  Egypt ;  another  and  a  different  account 
(1.  12)  of  Jacob's  burial  in  Canaan  (cf.  1.  7,  9).  In  J,  Joseph  in- 
forms Pharaoh  of  the  arrival  of  his  kinsfolk;  in  P  (resort  to  LXX.), 
the  king  hears  of  it  by  rumor.  In  one,  Joseph  introduces  his  five 
brethren  ;  in  the  other,  he  introduces  his  father  (xlvii.  7).  J  makes 
the  land  of  Goshen  Jacob's  dwelling-place  (xlvii.  4) ;  P,  the  land  of 
Eaamses.  In  one,  Joseph  is  instructed  to  take  the  patriarch's 
remains  to  Canaan  (xlvii.  29) ;  in  the  other,  all  the  brethren  are 
required  to  do  so  (xlix.  29). 

.  We  have  made  no  effort  to  present  an  exhaustive  list  of  the  dif- 
ferences, discrepancies  and  contradictions  found  by  critics  in  the 
text  of  Genesis,  when  looked  upon  as  made  up  of  three  independent 
sources.  We  have  probably  cited  the  majority  of  them.  The  peculiar 
stamp  most  of  them  bear  is  apparent  on  a  simple  enumeration. 
They  arise  by  regarding  as  really  contemporaneous  what  appears  in 
Genesis  as  different  stages  of  the  history ;  or,  by  often  treating  an 
added  matter  of  detail  which  does  not  shut  out  or  contradict  the 
first,  if  taken  together,  as  a  second  account ;  or  they  rest  on  arbi- 
trary and  incorrect  assumptions  as  to  the  meaning  of  certain  pass- 
ages; or  on  an  undue  straining  of  the  argument  from  silence ;  or  a 
finical  exegesis;  or  other  precarious  methods.  The  important 
thing  is  that  they  principally  appear,  as  we  have  said,  only  after 
the  text  has  been  already  divided,  and  as  a  result  of  the  division. 
We  deny  that  they  inhere  in  Genesis  as  it  now  exists,  and  point,  in 
proof,  to  the  fact  that  they  are  almost  entirely  modern  discoveries. 
But  our  object  at  present  is  not  to  show  that  most  of  the  alleged 


272  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

discrepancies  are  the  direct  result  of  the  analysis,  and  hence  cannot 
be  used  in  support  of  it  without  the  fallacy  of  reasoning  in  a  circle. 
It  is  not  to  show  that  they  are  totally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
book  in  which  they  are  found,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Bible ;  although 
that  would  be  a  perfectly  legitimate  argument  in  its  place.  It  is 
rather  to  call  attention  to  them  as  literary  phenomena,  to  the  fact 
that  they  are  an  essential  part  of  the  apparatus  of  the  present 
analysis,  and  to  what  they  imply  as  such.  There  were  in  circula- 
tion in  Israel,  after  the  separation  of  the  tribes,  long  after  the 
erection  of  the  temple,  at  the  very  period  of  Isaiah's  prophecies, 
and  during  the  lives  of  all  the  great  prophets  of  the  northern  and 
southern  kingdoms,  down  to  the  Exile  itself,  confusing  and  discord- 
ant traditions  of  this  sort,  yet  no  allusion  is  made  to  them  in  the 
abundant  literature  of  these  periods,  albeit  nothing  could  have  been 
regarded  as  more  important.  Not  until  the  fifth  century  is  a  serious 
effort  made  to  harmonize  them  with  one  another  in  a  continuous 
history.  That  effort,  as  far  as  discrepancies  are  concerned,  was,  to 
a  considerable  extent,  in  a  spirit  of  concealment  and  equivocation, 
rather  than  of  the  expected  ingenuousness  and  candor.  Is  such  an 
hypothesis  probable  ?  Possible,  of  course  it  is ;  but  is  it  at  all 
probable  ?  Is  it  in  harmony  with  that  strong  trend  towards  politi- 
cal and  religious  unity  which  is  acknowledged  to  have  existed  long 
before  this  time,  and  which  was  a  necessary  effect  of  the  building 
of  the  temple  and  the  concentration  of  the  national  life  about  it. 
There  is  surely  no  analogy  for  such  a  procedure  in  the  composition 
of  Biblical  books,  or  of  any  others. 

We  are  pointed,  it  is  true,  to  the  first  book  of  Samuel  and  told 
that  an  editor  has  there  done  this  very  thing ;  that  is,  united  dif- 
ferent and  even  contradictory  stories  concerning  the  desire  of  the 
people  for  a  king,  the  appointment  of  Saul  as  such,  and  the  in- 
troduction of  David  at  court.*  If  contradictions  of  this  nature  in 
First  Samuel  were  conceded,  the  cases  would  be  by  no  means  par- 
allel. In  one,  we  have  a  single  fact,  or  a  small  cluster  of  connected 
facts ;  in  the  other,  the  whole  ancient  history  of  Israel  and  of  the 
world,  from  a  theocratic  point  of  view,  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Judges. 

We  agree  with  Prof.  Koenig  in  his  recent  excellent  Intro- 
duction to  the  Old  Testament,-^  that  differences  in  the  contents  of  the 
Pentateuch  cannot,  at  the  start,  be  denied,  on  the  ground  that  Israel 
could  not  have  suffered  them,  or  that  the  compiler  must  have 
removed  them.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  tradition  of  Israel  need 
not  be  regarded  as  in  itself  infallible.     The  question,  however,  is 

*Hebraica,  1888,  p.  66. 

•)•  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1891,  p.  172. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  273 

not  one  of  possibility ;  it  is  one  of  probability,  and  a  choice  between 
opposing  theories.  That  such  and  so  many  differences  existed  in 
the  tradition  of  Israel  at  any  period  assigned  for  the  compilation  of 
Genesis  we  must  regard  as  unlikely  in  the  extreme. 

Our  preliminary  view  will  not  be  complete  without  at  least  a 
glance  at  the  methods  of  the  compiler,  of  which  we  have  already 
given  hints.  What  principles,  according  to  the  critics,  governed  in 
the  compilation?  It  is  assumed  that  more  than  one  editorial  hand 
appears  in  Genesis,  and  that  the  documents  themselves  underwent 
many  changes  before  being  united  in  one  work.  For  our  purpose, 
however,  it  will  be  quite  just  to  look  upon  the  present  arrangement 
of  the  alleged  sources  and  all  the  editorial  matter  by  itself,  as  being 
essentially  in  one  category.  The  one  question  is,  How,  according 
to  the  advocates  of  the  analysis,  did  the  original  sources  come  into 
their  present  shape  ? 

We  are  met,  at  the  portal,  with  deprecatorv  and  damaging  ad- 
missions on  the  part  of  the  critics.  One  says,  for  example,  that  the 
compiler  did  his  work  on  principles  which  directly  exclude  one 
another ;  at  one  time  reproducing  his  sources  with  the  greatest 
faithfulness,  at  another  considering  chiefly  the  connection  and  unity 
of  his  own  work.*  Another  says  that  he  handled  his  sources  as 
freely  as  if  he  had  been  their  author,  but  without  sufficient  insight 
to  see  that  he  was  all  the  time  making  grave  blunders.  These  are 
serious  charges  ;  but,  as  we  shall  see,  they  are  well  within  the 
truth. f  It  will  appear,  also,  in  instances  too  numerous  to  mention, 
that  the  compiler  has  deliberately  aimed  to  impose  on  his  readers. 
That  is  to  say,  on  evidence  submitted  by  the  critics  themselves  and 
stamped  beyond  mistake  on  the  analysis  they  have  made,  it  can  be 
shown  that  the  compiler  was  incompetent,  inconsistent  and,  by  our 
modern  standards  of  morality  at  least,  culpably  false.  In  weighing 
probabilities,  accordingly,  the  question  of  the  mode  of  the  compila- 
tion becomes  one  of  great  importance. 

First,  he  was  incompetent,  or,  as  the  critics  say,  was  all  the  time 
committing  grave  blunders.  For  example,  in  chaps,  iv,  vi,  ix, 
xi,  he  has  mixed  up  with  the  sources  P  and  J  scraps  of  an  earlier 
stratum  of  the  latter  which  openly  contradict  the  statements  of  both. 
It  knows  nothing  of  trouble  between  Cain  and  Abel,  or,  strange  to 
say,  of  any  Flood.  It  represents  the  earliest  people  as  migrating 
peaceably  eastward  to  the  land  of  Nod  (why  "  Nod  "  we  are  not 
told),  building  cities,  cultivating  the  arts,  or,  like  Noah,  engaging  in 
the  pursuits  of  agriculture  ;  yet,  showing  an  unexplained  spirit  of 
rebellion  by  intriguing  with  the  angels  (vi.  1-4).     When  they  begin 

*  See  Volck,  Enticicklungsgeschichte  der  A.  T.  Religion,  1891,  p.  13. 
^  Hebraica,  v,  p.  68. 


274  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

to  multiply  on  the  earth,  in  order  to  check  their  too  rapid  growth 
human  life  is  limited  to  120  years.  Their  numbers,  notwithstand- 
ing, finally  become  so  great  as  to  awaken  Jehovah's  anxiety  (xi.  6), 
and  he  confounds  and  disperses  them  at  Babel.  This  is  no  travesty, 
but  the  direct  teaching  of  this  documei;t,  according  to  our  critics. 
"With  the  exception  of  a  part  of  chap,  xlix,  these  fragments  are  all 
that  is  left  of  this  earliest  source  now  in  Genesis.  Why  could 
not  the  compiler  have  been  content  to  leave  out  from  his  introduc- 
tion, matter  so  incongruous  and  so  disturbing  ? 

Again,  genealogical  tables,  we  should  suppose,  would  be  the  last 
thing  he  would  fail  to  understand  or  to  tamper  with.  Still  he  did 
not  seem  to  know  that  he  was  attaching  the  same  genealogy  to  both 
Cain  and  Seth  as  ancestors,  notwithstanding  the  identity  of  two  of 
the  names  (chaps,  iv,  v) ;  and,  later,  mixed  together  inextricably 
those  of  Shem,  Ham  and  Japheth  by  supplementing  the  table  of  P, 
here  and  there,  from  J  (chap.  x).  In  chap,  xiv  he  introduces, 
from  some  quarter  unknown,  an  episode  about  Abraham  which  he 
might  just  as  well  have  left  out;  but  which,  in  calling  him  "the 
Hebrew  "  and  making  him  so  courageous  in  his  attack  on  the  con- 
federate kings,  is  not  only  improbable  in  itself,  but  out  of  harmony 
with  its  context. 

In  Abraham's  life  throughout,  as  We  have  seen,  he  has  allowed  to 
stand  many  discrepancies  of  the  baldest  character,  making  hodge- 
podge of  the  narrative  considered  as  a  unit.  As  a  unit,  he  doubt- 
less meant  his  readers  to  understand  and  judge  it.  If  his  purpose 
had  been  to  display  the  documents,  some  other  course  would  have 
been  adopted.  As  it  is,  from  either  point  of  view,  if  the  analysis  be 
accepted,  the  performance  was  simply  stupid. 

In  the  middle  of  Genesis  his  work  is  especially  curious  as  a  speci- 
men of  literary  composition.  A  part  of  a  sentence  is  often  taken 
from  one  source  and  the  rest  of  it  from  another,  or  from  two  or 
three  others.  For  instance,  in  xvi.  1,  the  first  part  of  the  verse  is 
given  to  P,  "  Now  Sarai,  Abram's  wife,  bare  him  no  children  ;"  the 
remainder  to  J,  "  and  she  had  an  handmaid,  an  Egyptian,  whose 
name  was  Hagar."  In  xxi.  1  we  have,  "  The  Lord  visited  Sarah  as 
he  had  said  (J),  and  (P)  the  Lord  (compiler)  did  unto  Sarah  as  he 
had  spoken  "  (P)  :  in  all  two  authorities  and  the  compiler.  Again, 
in  xxvii,  1,  (Isaac)  "  called  Esau,  his  elder  son  (J),  and  said  unto 
him,"  etc.  (E).  In  xxvii.  28,  in  the  report  of  Isaac's  blessing,  we 
read,  "God  give  thee  ....  of  the  fulness  of  the  earth  (E),  and 
plenty  of  corn  and  wine  "  (J).  In  xxix.  26  we  have,  "  And  Laban 
said  (E),  It  is  not  so  done  in  our  place  "  (J) ;  ver.  28,  "  Jacob  fulfilled 
her  week  (E):  and  he  gave  him  Rachel"  (P).  In  xxx.  1  it  stands, 
"  When  Rachel  saw  that  she  bore  Jacob  no  children  (P),  Rachel 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  275 

envied  her  sister "  (E) ;  in  ver.  7,  "  And  Bilhah,  Rachel's  hand- 
maid (J),  conceived  again,  and  (E)  bore  Jacob  a  second  son  "  (J) ;  in 
ver.  22,  "  And  God  remembered  Rachel  (P),  and  God  hearkened 
unto  her  (E),  and  opened  her  womb  "  (J) :  one  verse  from  three  docu- 
ments. In  xli.  49,  we  read  :  "  And  Joseph  laid  up  corn  (E)  as  the  sand 
of  the  sea  very  much  (J)  until  he  left  off  numbering  "  (E).  In  xlix. 
1,  "  And  Jacob  called  his  sons  "  (P),  followed  by  the  blessing  pro- 
nounced upon  them  recorded  in  the  next  twenty-seven  verses  from 
J.  These  are  specimens  only  of  the  alleged  style  of  compilation  in 
these  sections.  What  is  to  be  said  of  it?  Is  it  clever,  or  is  it 
trivial  and  nonsensical  ? 

How  the  compiler  treated  the  history  of  Joseph  in  general  has 
already  been  somewhat  exhibited.  What  is  taken  from  P  has  no 
sequence  and,  by  itself,  is  unintelligible.  J  and  E  are  Tendenz- 
yescliichte^  one  being  written  to  exalt  Judah  and  so  in  the  interests 
of  the  southern  kingdom  ;  the  other  is  Ephraimitic,  and  Reuben, 
Joseph  and  his  two  sons  are  pushed  to  the  front.  How  they  differ 
in  detail  we  have  seen.  These  differences  the  compiler  has  ordi- 
narily not  disturbed.  He  has  clearly  aimed  at  unity  in  his  recital 
and  yet  has  left  his  pages  bristling  with  the  sharpest  antagonisms. 
Such  was  the  literary  ideal,  or  shall  we  rather  say  extraordinary 
naivete.,  of  an  historian  of  the  age  of  Isaiah  or  of  Ezra. 

Our  difficulties  are  not  a  little  increased  when  we  consider,  at  the 
same  time,  the  other  acknowledged  qualities  of  this  peculiar  char- 
acter. His  consistency  was  no  greater  than  his  capacity.  .AV^hy 
did  he  put  side  by  side,  though  so  contradictory,  at  the  beginning 
of  Genesis  two  accounts  of  the  creation  and  three  of  the  history 
more  immediately  following?  He  felt,  it  is  said,  the  great  intrinsic 
value  of  his  sources.  They  held  for  him  almost  canonical  rank. 
He  wished  to  preserve  and  to  present  as  much  of  them  as  possible. 
Still,  as  we  have  seen,  these  revered  originals  have  been  swallowed 
up  in  oblivion,  although  more  than  a  score  of  less  valuable  ones  have 
been  remembered  and  cited  by  those  who  used  them.  Can  that  have 
been  really  the  principle  which  governed  the  supposed  compiler? 
It  would  appear  not,  except  at  intervals.  It  might  be  thought  to 
be  so,  to  some  extent,  in  the  narrative  of  the  Flood  and  in  some  sin- 
gle incidents  later.  It  is  not  so  as  between  P  and  J  in  the  history 
of  Abraham  ;  or  as  between  J  and  E  in  the  continuation  of  Genesis. 
They  are  made  rather  to  supplement  one  another,  as  already  noted, 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  consecutive  account.  There  is  evi- 
dence in  abundance  that  the  compiler  had  no  such  reverence  for  his 
material  as  is  supposed.  In  this  same  narrative  of  the  Flood,  so 
far  from  keeping  the  documentary  matter  distinct,  he  has  taken  single 
words  and  phrases  from  one  and  inserted  them,  in  a  way  wholly 


276  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

inexplicable,  in  the  midst  of  the  other.  In  P  (vii.  12,  16-17  ;  viii. 
2,  3)  there  stands  where  it  ought  not,  a  reference  to  the  forty  days 
of  rain,  the  gradual  increase  and  abatement  of  the  waters,  to 
Jehovah's  shuttiug  the  patriarch  in.  In  J  (vi.  7,  vii.  3,  9,  23) 
there  is  twice  inserted  a  peculiar  formula  of  P's  description  of  ani- 
mal life  and  a  reference  to  the  animals  of  the  ark  as  entering  it  by 
twos,  male  and  female,  instead  of  by  sevens,  clean  and  unclean,  as 
might  have  been  expected.  Critics  unite  in  saying  that  this  is  the 
work  of  the  editor  or  compiler.  A  consistent  or  even  a  credible 
reason  for  it  has  not,  to  our  knowledge,  ever  been  given.  Did  he 
wish  to  make  them  more  alike  ?  It  is  not  consistent  with  his  leav- 
ing unchanged  the  bold  contrasts  claimed  to  be  found  in  the  con- 
text. In  ix.  22  (J^),  the  document  the  compiler  had  before  him 
stated  that  it  v/as  Canaan  who  first  saw  and  called  attention  to  the 
nakedness  of  Noah  and  who  was  subsequently  cursed  by  him.  He, 
however,  inserted  the  words,  "  Ham  the  father  of,  "  before  Canaan, 
thus  falsifying  the  record.  Whatever  other  motive  he  may  h-ave 
had,  it  was  certainly  not  one  of  reverence  for  this  document.  Was 
his  object  harmony  of  impression  ?  So  it  is  asserted.  Why,  again, 
seek  it  in  one  place,  and  on  so  small  a  scale,  to  offend  grossly  against 
it  elsewhere  on  a  large  scale  ? 

In  xiii.  1  (J),  in  an  account  of  Abraham's  going  up  out  of  Egypt, 
the  compiler  has  inserted  the  words,  "  and  Lot  with  him,  "  in  order 
to  prepare  the  way  for  a  remark  from  P.  By  doing  so  he  has  de- 
liberately garbled  his  authority,  made  it  say  what,  from  its  point 
of  view,  was  confessedly  false.  It  shows  anything  else  than  a  spirit 
of  reverence  or  a  canonical  valuation.  In  chap.  xv.  7,  8,  12-16, 
19-21  (JE),  he  has  wholly  changed  the  complexion  of  a  simple  ac- 
count of  a  sacrifice  by  Abraham  through  the  insertion  of  foreign 
material.  In  the  history  of  Jacob  and  Joseph,  in  a  multitude  of 
cases  he  has  interjected  in  the  midst  of  his  document  heterogeneous 
remarks  of  his  own,  changed  proper  names,  transferred  words  and 
clauses  from  one  source  to  another  in  a  way  to  defy  explanation  on 
the  grounds  given.  If  anything  whatever  was  sacred  to  the  com- 
piler it  must  have  been  the  names  of  Deity.  According  to  our 
critics,  it  is  the  one  supreme  mark  that  distinguishes  the  sources  iu 
Genesis.  Yet,  as  we  have  noted,  he  has  changed  Jehovah  to  Elohim, 
or  the  reverse,  not  less  than  seven  times,  and  by  dislocations  given 
one  or  the  other  a  wrong  context  more  than  a  dozen  times.* 

Under  these  circumstances  we  are  unable  to  believe  that  the  sup- 

*Cf.  Dr.  Green  in  Hebraica,  vii,  pp.  35,  36:  ""We  are  told  that  in  some 
places  he  carefully  preserved  minute  fragments  of  his  sources,  though  they  are 
a  superfluous  repetition  of  what  has  been  already  more  fully  stated  in  the  lan- 
guage of  other  documents,  and  yet  elsewhere  he  freely  omits  large  and  essential 


ORlGm  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  277 

posed  compiler  of  Genesis  was  controlled  in  his  method  by  rever- 
ence for  his  sources.  Nor  do  we  discover  any  one  controllino- 
principle  which  he  has  consistently  followed  throughout  his  work. 
If  he  had  desired  to  present  as  much  of  his  material  as  possible,  a  bet- 
ter way  would  have  been  to  have  put  them  in  a  complete  form  side 
by  side,  like  the  four  Gospels.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  his  object  was 
a  consecutive  history  made  up  from  the  three,  he  would  have  obtruded 
■  his  authorities  much  less.  From  either  point  of  view,  we  say  again, 
his  failure  is  conspicuous.  There  does  not  exist  a  consistent  theory 
of  the  compilation  of  Genesis  from  three  documents. 

Two  important  features  of  the  compiler's  work  have  been  left  un- 
noticed. How  did  hetreat  his  three  sources  as  a  whole  in  their  rela- 
tion to  one  another  ?  Did  he  actually  handle  them  as  though  J  and 
E  were  first  put  together  and  then  supplemented  long  after  by  P  ? 
This  question  will  be  considered  later  in  connection  with  a  discussion 
of  the  unity  of  Genesis.  Let  it  suffice  here  to  say  that  critics  are  far 
from  being  agreed  among  themselves  on  this  point.  It  is  acknowl- 
edged that  in  putting  together  the  documents  not  only  have  J  E 
been  supplemented  by  fragments  from  P,  but  J  has  often  been  cur- 
tailed and  mangled  in  favor  of  P.  This  is  a  very  strange  proceeding, 
if  the  current  theory  of  their  chronological  order  be  correct. 

Again,  the  final  editor,  it  is  supposed,  lived  after  the  Exile.  The 
Hebrew  language  at  the  time  of  the  Exile  had  undergone  great 
changes.  Are  we  able  to  discover  any  signs  of  this  late  Hebrew  in 
the  language  which  the  editor  himself  uses  here  and  there  ?  On  the 
contrary,  his  language  is  quite  homogeneous  with  the  material  with 
which  it  is  interwoven  :  sometimes  that  of  P  and  sometimes  that  of 
J  and  E.  We  are  often  reminded  that  we  must  not  require  too  much 
of  writers  in  these  early  times.  There  is  also  a  danger,  and  perhaps 
an  equal  one,  of  requiring  too  little.  Genesis,  from  whatever  point 
regarded,  is  a  great  work  and  has  achieved  a  distinct  literary  suc- 
cess. If  we  may  not  apply  to  its  composition  modern  literary  rules 
there  should  be  discoverable  intelligible  rules  of  some  sort  which 
may  be  applied  to  it.* 

portions  of  them.  In  some  places  he  preserves  unchanged  what  is  represented 
to  be  plainly  antagonistic,  while  in  other  places  he  is  careful  to  smooth  away 
discrepancies  and  to  give  a  different  turn  to  variant  passages  by  transpositions 
or  by  insertions  of  his  own.  He  sometimes  keeps  his  documents  quite  distinct  in 
language  and  form  ;  at  others  he  effaces  their  peculiarities,  or  blends  them  inex- 
tricably together.  All  these  offices  must  be  assumed  in  turn  in  order  to  carry 
the  hypothesis  safely  through  ;  but  whether  such  a  bundle  of  contradictions  was 
ever  incarnate  in  any  actually  existing  person,  the  only  proof  of  his  existence 
being  that  these  contradictory  things  are  alleged  about  him,  every  one  may 
judge  for  himself" 

*The  literary  critic  Andrew  Lang,  thus  speaks  of  a  similar  effort  at  analysis 


278  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

The  ethical  standard  of  our  compiler  also  presents  a  serious  diffi- 
cultj.  He  lived  after  the  prophets  of  the  ninth  century ;  we  might 
expect  in  him  a  reproduction,  in  some  degree,  of  their  spirit.  Sup- 
pose he  were  Nan  Hosea,  or  Amos,  or  Isaiah!  Isaiah  also  wrote  his- 
tory (2  Chron.  xxvi.  22).  It  is  clear  from  what  has  gone  before 
and  will  appear  more  fully  from  what  follows  that,  whoever  he 
was,  he  often  radically  disagreed  with  and  corrected  his  sources. 
He  treated  them  all  alike  in  this  respect.  None  was  an  authority 
for  him  in  any  such  sense  as  that  he  followed  it  implicitly.  He  put 
himself  above  them.  Yet  his  work  shows  no  such  evidence  of  com- 
petency and  consistency  as  to  justify  a  position  so  exalted.  In  the 
end  he  makes  himself  the  authority  ;  but  who  and  what  is  he  ?  Let 
us  illustrate. 

In  chaps,  ii  and  iii  he  inserts,  of  his  own  option,  Elohim  beside 
Jehovah  a  score  of  times.  In  iv.  16  he  makes  a  scrap  of  J^  a  con- 
tinuation of  J,  in  such  a  way  as  not  only  to  misrepresent  both  the 
sources,  but,  as  our  critics  must  and  do  maintain,  the  facts.  And 
this  mode  of  combination  is  habitual  with  him.  It  occurs  in  the 
majority  of  cases — and  they  are  a  host — where  he  pieces  his 
sources  together.     If  the  unity  of  Genesis  be  denied,  no  other  con- 

in  classical  literature  {Longman'' s  3Iagazine,  Sept.,  1893)  :  "  '  Terrible  learning! ' 
Mr.  Matthew  Arnold  used  to  say,  as  he  reviewed  the  performances  of  Homeric 
commentators.  'Terrible  learning! '  the  admirers  of  the  Odyssey  must  exclaim 
as  they  read  Homerische  Untersucliungen,  by  Herr  U.  von  Willamowitz  Mollen- 
dorflf.  This  critic,  who  has  a  great  reputation  for  learning  and  brilliance,  dis- 
covers that  the  Odyssey  is  not  the  best-told  tale  in  the  world,  not  a  masterpiece 
of  construction,  not  very  ancient.  It  is  the  work,  as  it  stands,  of  a  Botcher,  or 
Patcher,  a  miserable  journeyman  poet,  who  lived  about  650  B.C.  He  took  three 
older  epics,  which  again  were  based  on  older  lays.  He  cut  them  about,  docked 
beginnings  and  endings,  added  Book  I,  and  a  great  deal  of  other  nonsense  of 
his  own,  dragged  in  bits  of  the  ancient  poems  all  out  of  place,  and  by  his  tailor- 
craft,  scissors,  and  patches,  this  snip  stuck  and  stitched  together  our  Odyssey. 
Why  he  did  it,  what  he  had  to  get  by  it,  nobody  knows.  He  was  living  in  an 
age  when  poets  like  Arctinus,  Eugammon,  Agias,  and  others  were  making  epics 
of  their  own,  now  lost.  Others  were  turning  to  lyric  effusions.  There  can  have 
been  no  great  reading  public,  and  where  was  an  audience  for  the  whole  Odyssey  ? 
Why  did  a  patchwork  come  to  be  accepted  as  inspired,  while  the  works  of  Arc- 
tinus  perished?  How  was  Greece,  how  was  all  the  world  deluded  into  accept- 
ing a  wretched  piece  of  tailor-craft  as  an  epic  ?  Who  paid  the  tailor  ?  He  got 
no  renown,  nobody  ever  heard  his  name  mentioned,  and  I  fail  to  see  how  he 
could  get  any  solid  reward.  It  was  as  if  Mr.  Tupper's  continuation  of  Christa 
bel  were  to  be  accepted  as  a  solid  part  of  the  original,  and  the  whole  assigned  to 
Chaucer." 

After  showing,  in  a  ludicrous  way,  how  the  same  kind  of  analysis  might  be 
applied  to  Walter  Scott's  hanhoe  Mr.  Lang  remarks:  •  "The  German  critic  of  the 
Odyssey  dedicates  his  collection  of  mares'  nests  to  Wellhausen,  the  critic  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Are  we  to  begin  to  suspect  that  Old  Testament  criticism  is  on 
the  same  level  as  that  of  the  ingenuous  dissection  of  Imnhoe  ?  This  were  shock- 
ing indeed  to  serious  souls." 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  279' 

elusion  is  possible.  In  the  account  of  the  Deluge,  the  way  he  has 
introduced  tiny  bits  of  foreign  matter  in  consecutive  narrative,  not 
only  destroying  thereby  its  homogeneity  but  its  verity,  looks  even 
mischievous.  As  it  stands,  we  are  not  allowed  to  say  that  in  its 
chronology,  its  description  of  the  animal  life  concerned,  of  the 
coming,  the  extent  and  the  going  of  the  waters,  the  present  account 
is  true.  We  are  denied  the  same  prerogative  as  it  respects  each 
source  independently.  The  sole  privilege  left,  accordingly,  is  that 
of  guessing  at  the  facts.  In  ix.  18,  22,  as  we  have  seen,  the  com- 
piler says  that  Ham  was  the  father  of  Canaan.  This  was  not  true 
according  to  J^ ;  it  was  true  according  to  P.  Which  was  right  ?  Shall 
we  accept  the  compiler's  statement  as  conclusive  ?  But  he  had  an 
obvious  purpose  in  making  it :  it  was  to  be  able  to  insert  here,  out 
of  its  true  place,  a  fragment  from  J  without  too  much  apparent 
contrariety.  So  in  xvi.  8-10  he  has  incorporated  two  stories  of 
Hagar's  flight.  In  order  to  present  both  he  is  compelled  to  invent 
an  incident,  including  an  appearance  and  announcement  of  an 
angel  of  the  Lord.  In  Abraham's  experience  with  Abimelech 
(chap,  xx),  he  puts  into  the  document  E  words  which  are  at  home 
only  in  Abraham's  experience  with  Pharaoh  contained  in  the  docu- 
ment J ;  that  is  to  say  he  falsifies  for  the  sake  of  an  apparent  unity 
which  he  really  fails  to  achieve. 

In  the  account  of  Abraham's  sacrifice  of  Isaac  (xxii.  2,  14-18),  he 
has  inserted  the  word  "  Moriah,"  to  give  it  a  quasi-connection  with 
the  later  temple  mountain ;  and  further  on,  what  purports  to  be  a 
promise  of  Jehovah  to  the  patriarch.  In  xxiv.  6,  7,  again,  it  would 
appear,  in  the  interests  of  harmony,  he  refers  to  Sarah's  death,  which 
is  here  an  anachronism  ;  it  should  have  been  Abraham's.  To  make 
what  is  said  to  have  happened  to  Isaac  in  Gerar  (xxvi.  1,  15,  18) 
seem  like  a  new  story,  although  it  had  appeared  twice  before  in 
connection  with  Abraham,  he  states  what,  if  he  were  not  witless,  he 
knew  to  be  false, — that  the  famine  which  drove  Isaac  to  Gerar  was  a 
different  one  from  that  of  Abraham's  time ;  that  Isaac  digged  again 
the  wells  which  his  father  had  digged  and  the  Philistines  had  filled. 
He  puts  in  E  a  little  later  (xxviii.  21),  divine  name  and  all,  a  vow 
of  Jacob  to  Jehovah  which,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  was  a  pure  inven- 
tion. What  resources  he  may  have  had  outside  his  three  histories, 
it  is  true,  we  do  not  know.  But  his  obvious  motive  for  the  inser- 
tion and  his  proved  untruthfulness  elsewhere  make  the  hypothesis 
of  invention  the  most  natural.  In  xxxi.  51,  52,  he  has  made  J  use 
E's  word  "  pillar  "  of  the  heap  of  stones  which  Jacob  and  his  men 
threw  up  as  a  sign  and  pledge  for  Laban.  It  is  a  small  thing  in 
itself,  but  involves  either  carelessness  or  intentional  deception.  In 
speaking  of  God's  appearance  to  Jacob  at  Bethel  (xxxv.  9),  he  has 


280  TEE  PBESBTTEBIAK  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

put  in  the  misleading  word  "  again,"  and  said  further,  that  Jacob 
set  up  a  pillar  and  poured  out  a  drink  offering  thereon  ;  when  he 
knew,  according  to  our  critics,  that  it  was  an  event  which  had  been 
described  before  in  another  connection  ;  and  that  P,  his  present 
source,  knew  nothing  of  drink  offerings  at  this  stage  of  the  history. 
To  secure,  amid  glaring  incongruities,  a  verisimilitude  in  the  nar- 
rative of  Joseph,  he  unfairly  makes  E  represent  that  Joseph's 
brothers  hated  him  (xxxvii.  5,  8,  10) ;  changes  the  word  Judah  to 
Reuben  (xxxvii.  21) ;  makes  J  say  that  the  Egyptian  to  whom 
Joseph  was  sold  was  Potiphar,  when  J  had  scrupulously  left  that 
unsaid ;  puts  in  the  same  narrative  a  wrong,  mystifying  word  for 
sack  (xiii.  27);  gives  a  title  of  God  peouliar  to  P  to  E  ;  twice  alters 
the  word  Jacob  to  Israel  (xlviii.  11,  22) :  and  does  other  like  things 
which  space  forbids  us  to  enumerate. 

What  has  been  already  said  suffices  to  show  ad  abundantiam  the 
compiler's  method.  That  he  dealt  honestly  with  his  sources  or 
with  his  readers  will  not,  in  the  presence  of  these  facts,  be  main- 
tained. If  we  are  to  trust  the  representation  of  him  which  our 
critics  have  left  indelibly  stamped  on  his  work,  he  is  wholly  un- 
worthy of  our  confidence,  not  to  say  of  our  respect.  What  he  has 
done  is  withoat  value,  except  as  we  value  his  individual  opinion, 
the  more  or  less  authentic  scraps  of  information  he  has  here  and 
there  given  us,  and  the  fragments  he  has  preserved  of  his  supposed 
authorities. 

Such  then,  in  detail,  are  the  conditions,  the  actual  presupposi- 
tions reduced  to  plain  statement,  which  confront  us  before  we  take 
up  the  arguments  urged  in  support  of  the  current  theory 
of  the  origin  and  composition  of  Genesis.  Bating  what  one  will 
for  occasional  error  of  representation  on  our  part,  the  main  result 
cannot  well  be  wrong.  Many  a  scheme,  externally  and  curso- 
rily considered,  looks  plausible  which  will  not  bear  analysis.  To 
the  question  whether  it  is  likely  that  documents  of  this  sort  were 
in  circulation  in  Israel  at  any  of  the  dates  given,  we  have  been 
compelled  to  answer :  No ;  it  is  not  likely.  To  the  further  ques- 
tion whether  it  is  probable,  supposing  such  documents  to  have 
existed,  that  they  were  put  together  after  the  manner  indicated  by 
the  analysis  of  our  critics,  we  are  compelled  to  reply  with  a  far 
more  decided  negative;  to  say,  in  fact,  that  it  is  next  to  impossi- 
ble. If  the  make-up  of  the  compiler  intellectually  were  credible,  he 
would,  in  the  circumstances,  still  be  an  ethical  marvel.  Some  kind 
of  analogy  to  this  sort  of  composition,  therefore,  must  be  found 
elsewhere,  in  connection  with  the  Bible  or  outside  the  Bible,  or  the 
theory  breaks  down  of  its  own  weight. 

Efforts  have  been  made  to  find  such   an  analogy.     Up  to  the 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  281 

present  time  the  only  one  ofifered  wortlij  of  consideration  is  that  of 
Tatian's  Diatessaron,  It  was  an  attempted  harmony  of  the  Gospels 
made  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century  A.D.*  Tatian  did, 
in  fact,  arrange  the  four  Gospels  so  as  to  read  as  a  consecutive  nar- 
rative. In  doing  so  he  put  in,  apparently,  as  much  of  the  matter 
at  his  disposal  as  he  well  could.  He  found  use  for  many  mere 
fragments  of  verses.  He  was  obliged,  notwithstanding,  to  omit 
not  a  little — one-quarter  of  the  whole,  it  is  estimated.  He  likewise 
made  extensive  transpositions  of  the  matter.  Occasionally  he  sup- 
plied a  few  words  in  adjusting  one  section  to  another.  Here  and 
there  he  put  side  by  side  accounts  seemingly  variant,  like  those  of 
Luke  and  Matthew,  concerning  the  birth  of  our  Lord.  But  when 
we  have  said  so  much,  we  have  said  about  all  that  is  parallel  in  the 
two  cases.     Things  most  essential  have  been  left  untouched. 

No  one  would  venture  to  say  that  the  two  accounts  of  our  Lord's 
birth  are  at  all  analogous  to  the  two  of  the  creation  in  Genesis,  as 
they  are  contrasted  by  our  critics.  The  earlier  compiler  changed, 
falsified — for  that  is  the  exact  word — his  sources  at  will  and  made 
of  his  three  accounts  a  fourth,  which  faithfully  represented  none  of 
them  nor  the  sum  of  them  quite  as  fully  as  either.  It  represented 
his  own  caprice.  Tatian,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  admitted,  made  a 
legitimate  and  conscientious  use  of  his  authorities.  The  earlier 
compiler  made  no  reference  to  the  originals ;  Tatian  did,  using  dia- 
critical marks  for  the  purpose.  It  might  be  said  that  the  reason  in 
the  former  case  was  the  fact  that  they  were  anonymous.  "Who 
knows  that  they  were  anonymous  ?  and  if  they  were,  have  we  any 
ground  for  supposing  that  the  sources  cited  in  Samuel,  Kings  and 
Chronicles  were  not  generally  anonymous?  But  that  did  not  prevent 
an  appeal  to  them.  The  earlier  compiler,  in  using  his  alleged 
sources,  seems  to  have  used  them  up,  at  least  they  have  never  since 
been  heard  of.  Tatian's  work,  on  the  contrary,  itself  disappeared 
for  a  long  time  ;  but  his  sources  remained  and  were  always  supreme 
in  the  Church  at  large. 

In  Genesis,  it  is  supposed,  we  have  the  composite  work,  not  of 
one  person  alone,  but  of  two  at  least;  while  each  of  the  constituent 
parts  suffered  many  changes  before  being  united  to  its  companion 
documents.  Still,  critics  profess  to  be  able  to  analyze  the  contents 
down  to  jot  and  tittle  with  no  help  from  the  originals.  In  the  Dia- 
tessaron we  have  the  work  of  but  one  hand,  and  the  originals  are 
before  us.  So  if  it  be  true  that  "  the  most  hair-splitting  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch "  is,  as  one  has  said,  "  sober  in  comparison  with 
this  composite  Gospel,"  it  has  no  real  bearing  in  the  premises.     It 

*See  articles  by  Moore  and  Mead  in  the  Journal  of  the  Society  for  Biblical 
Literature,  1890,  pp.  201-215  ;  1891,  pp.  44-54. 
19 


282  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

is  not  the  uniting  of  several  documents  into  one  that  is  so  wonder- 
ful ;  it  is  the  ostensible  reproduction  of  the  original  documents  ver- 
hatim  et  literatim  more  than  two  thousand  years  later  without 
the  sign  of  a  guide  or  certain  knowledge  even  that  there  are  docu- 
ments of  the  sort  supposed.  We  repeat,  accordingly,  that  there  is 
no  proper  analogy  between  the  Diatessaron  and  the  compilation  of 
Genesis.  The  appeal  to  it,  in  the  circumstances,  is  unwarranted. 
For  such  documents  as  we  are  alleged  to  have  in  Genesis  and  for 
such  a  compilation,  there  exists,  as  far  as  we  know,  no  parallel  in 
history.  The  whole  scheme,  in  fact,  is  so  extraordinary,  so  out  of 
harmony  with  common  experience  ;  especially  are  the  forgeries  and 
falsifications  supposed  and  required  "  so  repugnant  to  the  probabili-- 
ties  of  the  case,"  and  to  any  just  conception  of  the  "origin  and 
import  of  the  Old  Testament ;  that  nothing  but  the  most  incontro- 
vertible demonstration  can  be  sufficient  to  establish  it."  * 

In  coming  therefore,  in  the  next  place,  to  consider  the  positive 
arguments  urged  in  its  behalf,  we  have  a  right  to  demand  for  them 
absolute  stringency.  We  must  have  proofs  that  c'annot  be  gainsaid. 
These  arguments  are  of  three  kinds :  supposed  repetitions  in  the 
narrative ;  diverse  theological  and  other  conceptions,  indicating  a 
wide  separation  in  date ;  and  differences  in  style  and  vocabulary. 
The  first  point  has  been  referred  to  above.  The  second  will  be  now 
briefly  examined.  It  is  claimed  that  the  documents  J  E  distinguish 
themselves  from  P  by  their  theological  conceptions.  For  example, 
their  representation  of  God  is  more  anthropomorphic,  verging  on 
polytheism ;  they  have  much  to  say  of  altars,  pillars,  sacrifices,  a 
feature  wholly  absent  from  P ;  they  make  a  distinction  between 
clean  and  unclean  beasts,  and  in  other  respects  anticipate  later  Mosaic 
laws.  P,  on  the  other  hand,  is  monotheistic,  legalistic,  carefully 
abstains  from  referring  to  the  sacrificial  ritual  of  Moses  before  its 
institution,  and  even  from  the  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  before 
Exodus  vi.  3,  where,  according  to  it,  the  title  has  its  historic  origin. 

It  is  to  be  admitted  that  there  are  abundant  anthropomorphisms 
in  Genesis ;  that  they  are  relatively  more  numerous  there  than  in 
any  other  book  of  the  Bible.  They  would  be  sufficiently  accounted 
for  by  the  supposition  that  Genesis  is  an  historical  record  of  early 
date.  Such  representations  of  God  belong  properly  to  the  child- 
hood of  the  race.  This  supposition,  moreover,  is  far  more  proba- 
ble than  that  later  Jews,  outraging  their  deeper  convictions,  in- 
vented such  anthropomorphisms  in  order  to  give  an  antique  color- 
ing to  their  own  work. 

It  is  to  be  denied  that  P's  representation  of  God  differs  vitally 
from  that  of  J  E.     It  is,  relatively  speaking,  no  more  monotheistic. 

*  Mead,  I.  c,  p.  46. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  283 

If  the  latter  lets  him  say  (iii.  22),  "  Behold  the  man  has  become 
as  one  of  us, "  the  former  puts  into  his  mouth  the  words  (i.  26), 
"  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness."  It  is  in  P 
that  God  is  represented  as  working  on  six  days  and  resting  the  sev- 
enth (chap,  i);  Enoch  and  Noah  walked  with  him  (v.  22,  vi.  9); 
he  talked  with  the  latter  ;  remembered  him ;  commanded  him  to 
leave  the  ark,  etc.  (vi.  13-22,  viii.  1,  15-17).  Theophanies,  a  char- 
acteristic feature  of  the  earlier  books,  are  not  peculiar  to  J  E,  but 
are  found  also  in  P  (xvii.  1,  22,  xxxv.  9,  13,  xlviii.  3  ;  cf.  xxxv.  9).  * 

In  the  question  of  the  recognition  of  religious  rites,  it  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  by  theory  the  material  of  P  is  unique,  that  it  is  largely 
genealogical  and  statistical,  and  that  it  makes  up  only  about  one-' 
fourth  of  the  book.  Again,  naturally,  it  was  to  Jehovah,  from  the 
first  recognized  as  the  theocratic  Ruler,  that  religious  worship  was 
paid.  Hence  we  should  expect  to  find  references  to  altars  and  sacrifices 
chiefly  in  a  Jehovistic  context.  But  they  are  not  confounded  with 
later  Mosaic  institutions.  Genesis  knows  of  no  one  especial  place  of 
worship  ;  has  no  priesthood  ;  no  system  of  sacrifices ;  practices  only 
two  sorts  of  sacrifices ;  does  not  regard  sacrifice  as  even  necessary 
for  worship ;  notably  looks  upon  the  essential  thing  in  it  as  the 
spirit  in  which  it  is  offered, — "  If  thou  doest  well,"  says  Jehovah  to 
Cain,  "  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted  ?  "  (i.  7). 

It  cannot  be  proven  that  by  the  fat  which  Abel  offered,  the  spe- 
cific parts  of  the  animal  afterwards  enjoined  by  the  Mosaic  law  are 
meant.  The  use  of  jninchah  in  the  sense  of  offering,  in  the  context, 
is  quite  different  from  its  later  technical  use.f  It  was  to  have  been 
expected  that  a  foreshadowing  of  subsequent  laws  would  appear  in 
the  customs  of  the  patriarchs :  like  sacrificing,  which,  however,  was 
only  occasional ;  like  the  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean 
among  animals  offered  up  (vii.  2) ;  the  giving  of  tithes  (xxviii.  22) ; 
outward  purification  (xxxv.  2) ;  the  levirate  marriage  (chap,  xxxviii). 
That  they  are  not  the  later  laws  proleptically  introduced  is  evident. 
They  are  of  a  different  and  more  primitive  form.  The  letter  of  a 
later  law  is  even  broken  with  impunity  by  Abraham  in  marryino- 
his  half  sister  (xx.  1,  2,  5). 

And  if  it  were  not  so,  P  is  fully  as  great  a  sinner  in  this  respect  as 
its  companion  documents.  It  is  P  that  introduces  in  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Genesis  the  term  "  raoadhim  "  (seasons),  afterwards  adopted  as  a 
technical  term  for  certain  of  the  Jewish  feasts;  describes  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath,  the  controlling  norm  of  all  the  feasts  (ii.  2), 
looking  straight  towards  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  at  the  same  time,  as 

*This  notwithstanding  Kcenig's  remark  {Einleit,  p.  225). 
f  The  meal  offering  in  the  ^Eosaic  ritual  was  never  offered  by  itself,  but  always 
in  connection  with  some  other  sacrifice. 


2  Si  THE  FEESBYTElUAy  AXD  REFOR.VEB  BE  VIEW. 

it  would  seem,  prohibits  the  eating  of  blood  ;  lays  tlie  foundation  of 
the  sixth  commaudnunu  \^ix.  3-0^ ;  discourages  heathen  mar- 
riages \^xxvi.  85^ ;  above  all  establishes  the  rite  of  circumcision  as 
the  one  fundamental  condition  of  Jewish  nationality  and  describes 
Israel  as  already  beginning  to  be  a  distinct  people  (chaps,  xvii  and 
xx-xiv).  If  the  supposed  earlier  documents  (,JE\  accordingly,  are 
charged  with  anticipating  improperly  Mos;\ic  institutions,  the  S5\me  is 
at  least  equally  true  of  the  later.  Hence  it  is  irrelevant  to  speak  of  P 
as  avoiding  the  use  of  Jehovah  before  Ex.  vi,  3  and  any  reference  to 
clean  and  unclean  animals,  etc.  \Yhat  he  does  say  shows  that  he  did 
not  i'ntenti'onalh/  avoid  speakino;  of  such  thintjs.  Nor  is  there  anv 
such  distinction  between  the  documents  as  to  subjects  treated,  as  is 
claimed,  if  the  material  be  fairly  dealt  with  and  an  illogical  use  of 
the  redactor  be  not  resorted  to.  In  xxxv.  14.  it  is  really  P  who 
says  that  "  Jacob  set  up  a  pillar  ....  a  pillar  of  stone :  and  he 
poured  out  a  drink  offering  thereon,  and  poured  oil  thereon."  And 
unless  a  like  violence  is  done  to  the  text,  this  same  source,  so  f!\r 
from  refraining  from  the  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  before  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Exodus,  uses  it  a  number  of  times,  as  though  it  were  the 
most  natural  thing  in  the  world  ^^vii.  5.  xvii.  1,  xxi.  1  :  cf.  the 
manipulation  of  the  text  v.  5^,  vii.  10).*  We  directly  challenge, 
therefore,  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a  real  diversity  of  theological 
conception  between  JE  and  P  in  Genesis  and  that  one  more  than 
the  other  presupposes  later  Mosaic  institutions.  They  both,  in  quite 
a  natural  manner,  prepare  the  way  for  such  institutions;  but  they 
do  not  presuppose  them  as  already  formally  existing,  f  Again,  it 
is  claimed  that  in  its  treatment  of  the  patriarchal  history  there  is  a 
marked  contrast  between  the  supposed  sources  JE  and  P.  The 
former,  it  is  held,  show  a  disposition  to  exalt  unduly  the  ancestoi"s 
of  the  Jewish  people,  while  the  latter  abstains  from  any  extrava- 
gance of  statement  concerning  them.  This  is  a  position  which  it 
will  be  found  exceedingly  difficult  to  maintain :  not  only  taking  into 
account  the  amount  and  quality  of  the  material  involved,  but  also 
other  facts.  It  is  P  that  pronounces  Noah  a  "  righteous  man 
and  perfect  in  his  generation "'  ^^vi.  9) ;  says  of  him  and  of  Enoch 
that  they  "walked  with  God"  yr.  21^;  speaks  of  God  as  making  a 
covenant  with  Abraham  and  changing  his  name  (xvii.  2,  5);  repre- 
sents him  as  a  mighty  prince,  of  great  wealth,  among  the  lords  of 
Canaan  (xxiii.  6);  shows  how  the  city  of  Shechem  came  into  the 

♦The  Samar.  Pentatfueh,  according  to  Kcenig  (EinJ^i"/.,  p.  163),  has  Jehovah  for 
Elohim  iu  vii.  9.  xxviii.  4.  xsxi.  9.  10.  aud  Elohiiu  for  Jehovah  iu  xiv.  02, 
XX.  18. 

+  Other  than  theokigical  couceptions  (cosmological.  etc.)  will  be  taken  up  later 
in  another  connection. 


ORIGIN  AND  C'OMPOSiriON  OP  GENESIS.  285 

power  of  Jacob  and  his  sons  (chap,  xxxiv);  as  well  as  the  others, 
pictures  the  greatness  to  which  Joseph,  and  through  him,  his  family 
attained  in  Egypt  (from  chap,  xlij. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  predicated  sources  JE  deal  more  at 
length  with  the  patriarchal  history,  it  is  noticeable  that  they  do  not 
spare  the  follies  or  the  sins  of  these  ancient  worthies.  It  is  in  these 
very  sources  that  we  find  unsparingly  depicted  Adam's  fatal  weak- 
ness in  Eden  (iii.  6;;  Noah's  shameful  drunkenness  (ix.  20-24); 
Abraham's  and  Isaac's  cowardly  deceptions  Cchaps.  xii,  xxvi;j 
Jacob's  ignoble  evasions  and  subterfuges  in  his  relations  with  Esau 
and  Laban  (chaps,  xxviii-xxxiij ;  the  dreadful  treachery  and 
cruelty  of  Jacob's  sons  towards  certain  of  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan, 
necessitating  their  sudden  flight(chap,  xxxiv);  Judah's  unblushing 
licentiousness  and  criminal,  if  unconscious,  incest  (chap,  xxxviiij ; 
and  last,  though  not  least,  the  lack  of  natural  affection  shown  by  the 
brethren  in  their  treatment  of  Joseph  and  their  aged,  heart-broken 
father  (chaps,  xxxvii-xliii).  Under  circumstances  like  these,  if 
it  be  a  question  of  hif^torical  fidelity  and  simple  straightforward- 
ness of  statement  whatever  the  consequences,  certainly  the  alleged 
documents  JE  will  not  suffer  when  brought  into  comparison  with 
the  supposed  more  realifctic  and  phlegmatic  narrator  of  the  Exile. 

Once  more,  it  is  said  of  P  in  this  connection,  that  it  is  not  be- 
trayed into  the  bald  anachronisms  of  JE  as  it  respects  the  arts,  which 
the  latter  represent  as  flourishing  even  with  Cain  and  his  immedi- 
ate posterity,  Jabal,  Jubal  and  Tubal,  That  what  is  described  in 
Gen.  iv.  17-23  (JE)  is  out  of  harmony  with  its  assumed  date,  has 
never  yet  been  proven.  Were  it  to  be  so,  the  reasoning  would  be 
equally  valid  against  what  is  said  in  Gen.  vi.  14-16  (P),  where 
Noah  is  suddenly  called  upon  and  expected  to  build  a  store-ship 
with  no  other  instructions  than  the  most  general  statement  of  its 
form  and  dimensions  ;  is  required,  in  other  words,  to  apply  the  very 
knowledge  of  the  arts  earlier  presupposed.  The  question  may  be 
safely  left,  accordingly,  to  the  candid  judgment  of  any  one  acquaint- 
ed with  the  facts  whether  they  justify  the  conclusions  stated  by  our 
critics,  or  do  not  rather  compel  a  conclusion  diametrically  opposite. 
There  is  no  such  diversity  in  the  circle  of  ideas,  theological  or  gen- 
eral, in  JE  and  P,  notwithstanding  that  their  bounds  are  first  un- 
alterably fixed  by  the  analysis,  as  to  lead  one  fairly  to  infer  that  they 
arose  at  widely  different  dates. 

The  third  and  final  argument  for  the  present  analysis  rests  on 
alleged  differences  in  style  and  vocabulary.  Here,  too,  the  argu- 
ment from  style  is  not  pressed  as  between  J  and  E,  but  only  as  be- 
tween JE,  taken  together,  over  against  P,  Now  it  is  freely  admitted 
that,  as  the  material  has  been  divided,  there  is,  in  general,  a  great 


286  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

difference  in  style  between  these  documents.  It  could  not  be  other- 
wise; hence,  proves  nothing.  Necessitas  non  habet  legem.  It  is 
only  saying  over  again  that  the  matter  of  P  is  different  from  that  of 
the  rest  of  Genesis.  The  matter  mostly  determines  the  style.  We 
have  seen  how  P  is  made  up  here.  Genealogies  and  statistics  are 
its  bone  and  sinew.  It  has  but  little  narrative.  J  and  E  are  al- 
most wholly  narrative.  Set  the  few  purely  narrative  portions  of  P 
alongside  those  of  JE,  where  they  have  the  same  theme  and  the  same 
context,  and  there  may  be  a  fair  comparison.  We  might,  for  ex- 
ample, compare  P  with  J  or  E  in  any  part  of  the  last  half  of  Gene- 
sis, if  P  had  matter  enough  here  to  allow  a  comparison.  Take 
chap,  xxxiv,  which  offers,  perhaps,  the  fairest  opportunity  for  it. 
Diff'erences  in  style  will  at  once  be  redaced  to  the  vanishing  point. 
The  argument  from  mere  style,  consequently,  is  invalid  in  the  larger 
part  of  Genesis ;  and  where  it  can  be  fairly  applied,  it  is  without 
cogency.*  The  argument  from  vocabulary  is,  to  some  extent,  in 
another  category  ;  although  here  also  the  character  of  the  material 
greatly  conditions  the  question.  As  a  recent  writer  f  has  shown, 
there  are  two  principal  points  of  view  from  which  this  part  of  the 
literary  problem  should  be  considered :  that  of  possible  successive 
or  periodic  changes  indicated  in  a  given  vocabulary ;  and  that  of 
simultaneous  changes.  As  to  the  first,  it  is  clear  that  there  are  ac- 
tual stages  of  growth,  or,  better,  of  decay  indicated  in  the  Hebrew 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  question  is,  (1)  how  far  does  the  evi- 
dence of  it  appear  in  the  original  text  of  Genesis  ;  and  (2)  as  far  as 
it  may  appear  does  it  support  the  current  analysis? 

Results  only  can  here  be  given.  Undoubtedly,  as  we  think,  the 
present  Hebrew  text  may  be  taken  as  representing,  to  a  reason- 
able degree,  the  original  text,  whatever  occasional  and  sporadic  cor- 
ruptions it  may  have  undergone.  Now,  if  it  be  true,  as  claimed, 
that  the  document  known  as  P  is  of  considerably  later  origin  than  J 

*  One  of  the  best  Biblical  critics  claims  a  more  flowing  style  in  P  itself  in  the 
latter  parts  of  the  book.  Tliis  is  equivalent  to  abandoning  the  argument  from 
style  altogether.     Cf.  Tuch,  Com.  uber  die  Genesis,  p.  xlix. 

t  Kcenig.  Cf.  Studien  und  Kritiken  1893,  3tes  Heft,  pp.  445-479.  "  Wodurch 
sich  Tuch  'die  leicht  erklarbare '  Thatsache  das  die  Schreibart  im  letzten 
Theile  der  Grundschrift  geschmeidiger  und  fliissiger  war  als  sie  zu 
Anfang  erscheint,  erklitrt,  sagt  er  nicht.  Uns  will  es  bediinken,  eine  solche 
Thatsache  zu  erkUiren,  gebe  es  tiberhaupt  nur  zwei  Wege.  Entweder  liegt 
zwischen  der  Abfassung  der  eiuzelnen  Stiicke  eines  Verfassers,  an  welchen 
man  Verschiedenheit  des  Styls  bemerkt,  ein  Zeitraum  der  lang  und  reich  genug 
ist,  um  dem  Tempora  mutantur  et  nos  mutamur  in  z7ZisRaum  zu  gestatten,  oder 
aber  die  Verschiedenheit  desbehandelten  Gegenstandes,  oder  des  verschiedenen 
Gesichtpunkts,  aus  den  der  niimliche  Gegenstand  behandelt  wird,  bringt  die 
Aenderung  der  Schreibart  mit  sich,  wobei  dann  freilich  im  ersten  Falle  der  Styl 
als  Produkt  der  Nothwendigkeit  und  im  zweiten  als  Produkt  der  Freiheit  im 
geisligen  Leben  erscheint."     See  Kurtz,  Einheit  des  Pentateuchs,  1844,  p.  106. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  287 

and  E,  especially  if  it  arose  at  the  time  of  the  Exile,  while  they  be- 
long to  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  the  signs  of  it  should  not  fail  in 
the  vocabulary  used.  This  is  not  only  a  suificiently  long  interval 
for  a  proper  test ;  but  it  is  one  when  the  most  marked  changes  of 
this  sort  would  be  likely  to  occur.  If  then  they  are  found  to  exist, 
under  proper  conditions,  it  will  be  a  strong  reason  not  only  for  the 
original  separate  existence  of  P,  but  will  directly  support  the  time 
phase  of  the  theory.  On  the  other  hand,  if  they  are  found  not  to 
exist,  there  is  left  the  second  point  of  view  from  which  the  subject 
may  be  considered.  And  we  shall  inquire  whether  there  are  simul- 
taneous differences  in  the  vocabularies  of  the  three  supposed  docu- 
ments of  such  a  nature  and  such  a  number  as  to  prove  the  hypothe- 
sis of  separate  documents. 

Before  giving  the  result  of  our  own  investigations  on  the  first 
point,  it  will  be  proper  to  refer  to  the  views  of  others  who  have  gone 
over  the  same  ground.  Ryssel,  a  few  years  since,  made  the  language 
of  the  P  document  a  special  study.  His  conclusion,  which  was  in- 
deed assailed  by  some  scholars,  but  defended  by  others  of  at  least 
equal  ability  and  fairness,  was,  as  it  respects  our  book,  to  the  effect, 
that  it  is  not  only  wanting  in  traces  of  a  late  age,  but  abounds  in 
the  indications  of  a  primitive  one.  Essentially  the  same  position  is 
taken  by  Dillmann  having  in  view  the  whole  document.  After  cit- 
ing a  large  number  of  its  peculiarities,  he  says  :  "  Why  such  expres- 
sions should  be  called  late  is  not  intelligible That  many  of 

them  are  otherwise  found  only  in  the  later  writers  is  not  sufficient 
to  show  that  they  themselves  belong  to  that  period."  * 

Our  first  inquiry  then  concerns  the  vocabulary  of  P  in  Genesis. 
Does  it  indicate  an  origin  several  centuries  after  J  and  E  ?  One 
thing  is  important  and  one  is  necessary  in  the  investigation.  It  is 
important  to  show,  if  possible,  stages  of  change  in  the  use  of  a  word 
in  P  ;  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  the  word  actually  arose  after  J 
and  E.  Words  used  by  P  in  Genesis  showing  possible  stages  of 
change  are  :  First,  such  as  have  been  modified  in  their  root  form,  one 
of  the  consonants  within  the  word  being  exchanged  for  another ;  or, 
a  soft  consonant  having  taken  the  place  of  a  hard  one.  Such  are  the 
words  meaning  lamh^  to  cry  out  and  to  laugh  ;  and  they  are  all  of 
their  kind  that  are  relevant.  Of  these,  the  first  is  not  peculiar  to  P, 
J  and  E  also  showing  the  same  change  (xxx.  32,  33,  35,  40).  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  second  (xviii.  20,  a  nominal  form). 
While  both  P  and  J  have  the  earlier  form  of  the  third  and  neither 

*  Ryssel  Be  EloMsiie  Pentateucliici  Sermone,  Lips.,  1878.  Cf.  Giesebrecht, 
Zeitschrift fur  AlUestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  1881,  pp.  177-276;  Driver,  Journal 
of  Philology  xi,  201-236;  Kuenen,  2 he  Hexateuch,  §  15,  11;  Dillmann,  Die 
Bucher  Numeri,  Deuteronomium,  etc.,  pp.  063-665. 


288  2'HE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

has  the  later  (xvii.  17,  P;  xviii.  12,  J).  Hence  there  is  nothing  in 
this  class  to  show  the  later  origin  of  P. 

A  second  class  consists  of  words  using  a  different  and  a  supposed 
later  lexical  or  grammatical  form  to  express  the  same  early  idea. 
Here  we  find  the  demonstrative  pronoun  in  two  forms,  the  personal 
pronoun  of  the  first  person  singular  and  the  verbs  meaning  respec- 
tively to  make,  or  establish  (a  covenant)  and  to  beget.  As  it  respects 
these  words  as  a  whole,  there  is  no  positive  evidence  that  the  forms 
regarded  as  the  later  were  not  in  use  in  the  earliest  Biblical  periods 
of  the  language.  The  question  before  us  therefore  is,  Does  P  use 
only  the  form  apparently  latest  developed  ?  or  does  that  form  so  pre- 
ponderate in  P  as  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  is  of  later  origin? 

As  it  concerns  the  demonstrative  pronoun,  there  is  a  long  and 
short  emphatic  form  in  the  singular  and  a  long  and  short  form  in 
the  plural ;  of  the  former  the  long  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  the 
older.  It  is  found  in  J  (xxiv.  65)  and  E  (xxxvii.  19)  in  Genesis; 
but  the  short  form  also  occurs  in  Judges  (vi.  20)  and  2  Kings  (fern.  iv. 
25),  as  well  as  once  in  Zechariah  (ii.  8),  Daniel  (viii.  16)  and  Ezra 
(xxxvi.  35).  Whether  the  shorter  form  of  the  plural  be  regarded  as 
archaic  or  not,  like  the  common  one,  it  is  about  equally  distributed 
in  the  documents  (Gen.  xix.  8,  25,  xxvi.  3,  4,  E. ;  Lev.  xviii.  27 ;  1 
Chron.  xx.  8,  etc.),  and  so  has  no  bearing.  Of  the  two  forms  of  the  first 
person  singular  of  the  personal  pronoun,  it  is  true  that  the  shorter 
predominates  in  P  and  also  in  the  later  literature.  This  is  impor- 
tant, but  not  convincing.  The  gradual  diminution  in  the  use  of 
the  longer  form  is  curiously  interrupted  in  Deuteronomy ;  while 
phenomena  suggesting  a  different  explanation  are  presented  in  the 
other  documents  sufficient  to  break  the  force  of  this  one  example 
of  the  kind.  For  instance,  the  alternative  word  for  Lord  in  the  Old 
Testament,  Adonai,  is  not  found  at  all  in  P  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  eigh- 
teen times  in  J  and  E.  And  while  used  increasingly  in  later  books,  it 
culminates  in  Ezekiel,  where  it  is  found  232  times,  or  much  beyond 
the  sum  of  all  its  occurrences  elsewhere.  The  same  word,  too,  presents 
a  notable  sign  of  development.  Its  literal  sense  being  my  Lord, 
four  times  in  Ezekiel  and  once  in  Job  the  same  form  has  come  to 
have  the  sense  of  Lord  or  the  Lord.  The  history  of  the  word 
Adonai,  accordingly,  to  go  no  further,  is  directly  against  the  con- 
clusion as  to  the  relative  date  of  P  reached  from  the  gradually 
diminishing  use  of  anoJci  in  favor  of  ani. 

Again  the  two  forms  of  the  verb  used  with  covenant  do  not  really 
belong,  as  alleged,  to  different  ages,  while  carrying  the  same  mean- 
ing. The  meaning  is  not  the  same  ;  the  causative  form  having  the 
sense  to  establish,  not  to  make  (a  covenant).  The  context,  in  every 
case    of   its  occurrence,  abundantly   proves   this     (see    chaps,   ix 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  289 

and  xvii  of  Genesis  ;  also  Ex.  vi.  4 ;  Lev.  vi.  9).  Finally,  as  it  re- 
spects the  verb  meaning  to  heget^  the  claim  is  that  P  uses  the  causa- 
tive form,  while  J  uses  the  ground  form  in  the  same  sense.  That 
the  causative  form  is  later  is  inferred  from  its  predominant  use  in 
Chronicles  (cf.  also  Jer.  xxx.  6)  and  other  late  books.  This  is  pre- 
carious reasoning,  since  the  ground  form  is  also  used  in  the  same 
sense  in  Chronicles  a  number  of  times,  as  well  as  in  Job,  the  Psalms 
and  apparently  in  Isaiah  (xlix.  21).  But  a  more  serious  difficulty 
with  the  argument  is  that  the  use  of  this  special  form  by  P  in  the 
Pentateuch  is  mostly  limited  to  two  genealogies  (chaps,  v  and  xi 
of  Genesis).  This  implies,  of  course,  sources  of  much  smaller  dimen- 
sions than  has  been  surmised.  "We  are  quite  ready  to  admit  that 
the  occurrence  of  two  forms  of  the  word  side  by  side  with  the 
same  meaning  makes  the  impression  that  different  documentary 
sources  are  involved  in  the  structure  of  Genesis  ;  it  does  not,  how- 
ever, argue  for  documents  of  the  sort,  and  of  the  extent  required  by 
the  current  theory. 

One  other  change  in  vocabulary  which  might  indicate  successive 
periods  is  where  a  word  or  expression  solely  in  use  in  earlier  times 
has  been  mostly  or  wholly  supplanted  by  another  having  the  same 
sense.  There  are  two  pertinent  examples  of  this  kind,  and  they 
bear  decidedly  against  the  relative  lateness  of  P.  The  first  is  the 
case  of  the  word  f^or  fine  linen  found  in  Genesis  and  the  rest  of  the 
Pentateuch.  With  the  exception  of  three  examples  in  Ezekiel 
(xvi.  10,  13  ;  xxvii.  7),  this  word  disappears  later,  giving  place  to 
another.  Unluckily  for  the  theory,  the  older  form  is  far  more  com- 
mon in  P  than  in  JE,  The  other  case  is  the  collective  for  ears  (of 
grain).  It  occurs  in  the  Hexateuch  and  in  P  only  in  this  sense  (Ex. 
ix.  31 ;  Lev.  ii.  14).  In  E  in  Genesis,  on  the  contrary,  and  in 
later  books  (Ruth  ii.  2 ;  Is.  xvii.  5 ;  Job  xxiv.  24,  in  the  singular 
including  Zech.  iv.  12),  quite  another  word  is  found  with  the  same 
meaning.  What  adds  emphasis  to  this  fact  is  the  employment  of 
the  earlier  form  as  the  name  of  a  month  for  which  the  exilic  title 
was  Nisan. 

These  are  all  the  examples  of  what  may  be  called  successive  or 
periodic  changes  in  the  language  of  Genesis,  having  a  bearing  on 
our  problem.  That  they  make  probable  the  later  origin  of  P,  much 
more  that  they  prove  it,  no  one  will  care  to  hold. 

But  in  the  next  place,  it  might  be  thought  that  classes  of  words  used 
exclusively  by  P  in  Genesis,  and  elsewhere  only  in  the  later  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  can  be  cited  as  showing  a  later  origin  for  that 
document.  Such  lists  are  to  be  carefully  noted.  To  give  them  valid- 
ity as  proofs  here,  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  they  are  not  likely  to 
have  been  employed  by  late  writers  simply  as  a  part  of  the  common 


290  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

stock  of  words  belonging  to  the  sacred  literature  of  the  people. 
Especially  it  must  be  shown  that  P  is  peculiar  in  this  respect  and 
that  the  same  phenomenon  "does  not  appear  in  J  and  E.  Examples 
of  P's  usage  are  the  following :  The  word  for  firmament  outside  of 
Genesis  (i.  6)  appears  only  in  Psalms  in  two  places,  in  Ezekiel  once 
and  in  Daniel  once;  the  cardinal  number  one  is  used  as  an  ordinal 
outside  of  the  Hexateuch  only  in  1  Kings  (xvi.  23),  but  often  in 
the  later  books ;  a  peculiar  word  for  possession  (Gen.  xii.  5)  outside 
the  Hexateuch  is  found  only  in  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Daniel ;  a  word 
for  kind^  species,  elsewhere  only  once  in  Ezekiel ;  a  word  for  to  swarm 
elsewhere  only  once  in  Ezekiel  ;  the  expression  the  self-same  day 
elsewhere  only  once  in  Ezekiel.  But  on  the  other  hand  there  is  an 
expression  in  J,  garden  of  the  Lord  (ii.  8,  xiii.  10),  whose  sole  rem- 
iniscence likewise  is  in  one  passage  in  Ezekiel  (xxviii.  13) ;  a  peculiar 
word  for  bottle  in  E  (xxi.  1-1,  15,  19),  which  reappears  only  in  Hab- 
akkuk  (ii.  15) ;  a  word  in  J  meaning  to  grieve  (xlv.  5,  Ni.),  found 
•once  in  1  Samuel  (but  otherwise  Nehemiah  and  Ecclesistes  ;)  the  ex- 
pression "  land  of  Shinar "  (x.  10),  ascribed  to  J,  but  outside  of 
Genesis  found  only  once  each  in  Isaiah,  Zechariah  and  Daniel ;  the 
pi.  of  the  cardinal  one,  in  the  sense  of  some,  a  few,  in  E  twice — xxvii. 
44,  xxix.  10, — elsewhere  only  in  Daniel  (xi.  20).  Hence  if  one  set 
of  passages  is  valid  to  prove  P  late,  the  other  is  equally  so  to  prove 
J  and  E  late. 

Besides,  there  are  words  supposed  to  be  peculiar  to  P  which  do 
not  appear  in  the  latest  books,  but  fail  after  Jeremiah.  "What  is  to  be 
said  of  them?  Such  are  those  for  waste  and  emptiness  (i.  2) ;  the 
verb  for  gather  together  (i.  9,  10,  Ni.);  the  word  for  sea  monsters 
(i.  21) ;  for  green  grass  (i.  11) ;  another  word  for  possession  (xxiii.  18). 
And  there  is  an  important  word  rendered  lights  (Gen.i.  14,  a  part  of 
P),  which  assumes  a  different  form  in  Ezekiel  (xxxii.  8).  Contrariwise 
there  are  expressions  assigned  to  J  and  E  which,  if  used  to  some 
extent  elsewhere  outside  of  Genesis,  at  least  have  a  prominent  and 
sometimes  a  predominant  place  in  the  latest  books.  Such  are  the 
words  to  prosper  (xxiv.  21  Hi.),  to  bow  the  head  (xxiv.  26),  to  try 
(xxii.  10  Qi.)  and  one  for  prince  (xii.  15).  These  are  fair  examples 
selected  from  a  list  of  words  ascribed  to  the  several  documents  in 
Genesis.  They  certainly  do  not  support  the  conclusion  that  it  is 
of  later  source  than  J  and  E ;  much  less,  as  far  as  this  book  is  con- 
cerned, do  they  support  the  assertion  of  the  recent  critic  that  in  con- 
trast with  other  parts  there  are  entire  connected  sections  of  P  which 
in  their  literary  phenomena  agree  with  those  of  the  latest  times,  and 
in  form,  if  not  in  content,  must  have  had  their  origin  in  those  times.* 

And  it  is  to  be  noted,  still  further,  that  these  facts  do  not  stand 

^  Kcenig,  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1893,  Stes  Heft,  p.  471. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  291 

alone.  Equally  with  the  other  two  supposed  sources,  P  shares  in  a 
certain  archaic  coloring  which,  in  the  main,  is  indisputable.  It 
shows  in  common  with  them  the  use  of  the  masc.  of  the  third  person 
of  the  personal  pronoun  as  generis  communis.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  word  for  maiden.,  one  form  serving  for  both  genders  with  a  few 
exceptions  throughout  the  Pentateuch.  It  has  preserved  the  obsoles- 
cent form  for  the  nominative  case  (i.  24:) ;  an  archaic  word  for  child 
(xi.  30);  an  archaic  pronominal  ending  (i.  11) ;  does  not  place  the 
numeral  after  the  word  numbered,  a  custom  beginning  with  Exodus 
•(xxix.  1) ;  retains  that  of  repeating  the  thing  numbered  with  its  num- 
ber, a  custom  which  disappears  after  1  Kgs.  vi.  1 ;  uses  a  circumlocu- 
tion for  the  ordinal  (vii.  11);  and  contains  a  multitude  of  antique 
phrases  (xvii.  14,  xxv.  8,  etc.).  On  the  other  hand,  this  document  is 
lacking,  conspicuously  in  Genesis,  in  those  signs  of  decay  which  mark 
the  Hebrew  subsequent  to  Jeremiah.  Dillmann  has  named  nearly  a 
score  of  them.*  This  argument,  it  is  true,  is  negative ;  but  it  is  a 
complete  counterpart  to  the  positive  side  which,  to  a  limited  extent, 
has  just  been  given.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  in  view  of  these 
facts,  to  maintain  that,  in  contrast  with  JE,  the  document  known  as 
P  had  a  considerably  later  origin. 

But  another  important  question  remains.  Does  the  vocabulary 
of  Genesis  furnish  evidence  strongly  corroborative  of  the  current 
theory  that  three  diverse  documents  lie  at  its  basis?  That  such  an 
argument  can  in  itself  be  demonstrative,  or  anything  more  than  an 
adjunct  to  others  of  greater  import,  none  will  hold.  It  is  possible 
here  to  do  little  more  than  to  consider  the  principles  by  which  the 
facts  elsewhere  collected  are  to  be  judged.  There  is  nothing  per  se 
against  the  assumption  that  a  work  like  Genesis  may  be  made  up 
from  different  contemporaneous  sources.  It  is,  of  course,  also  pos- 
sible that  these  sources  may  so  decidedly  differ  in  literary  char- 
acter from  one  another  that  on  that  ground  alone  they  may  be 
separated  from  one  another  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  and  degree  of 
certainty.  The  question  is.  Are  the  linguistic  peculiarities  of  Genesis 
of  this  sort  and  have  they  been  so  delineated? 

They  include  a  phraseology,  as  we  have  seen,  which  is  the  com- 
mon heritage  of  precxilic  Israel.  As  was  to  be  expected,  it  has 
marked  features,  corresponding  to  Israel's  signal  history.  In  this 
very  excess  of  literary  characteristics,  in  fact,  lies  one  chief  danger. 
They  can  easily  be  set  over  against  one  another  in  extended  lists. 
That  process,  however,  is  far  enough  from  determining  the  sources, 
although  many  seem  to  have  thought  otherwise.  Unless  the  sources 
have  been  conclusively  fixed  by  other  means,  it  is  only  a  scheme  of 
guessing,   with   the   widest   margin   for   caprice.     In   what   book 

*  Die  Bucher  Nameri,  Deuteronom.,  p.  G65. 


292  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

and  by  what  author  have  universally  accepted  critical  principles 
been  laid  down  by  which  this  exceedingly  delicate  operation  of  as- 
signing a  given  word  to  one  supposed  document  rather  than  another 
is  decided?*  Undoubtedly  the  clearest  logical  rules  have  been 
continually  violated  in  the  current  analysis. 

For  example,  there  are  words  cited  as  characteristic  of  a  docu- 
ment which  are  found  very  seldom,  or  even  but  once  in  it.  About 
one-third  of  the  words  usually  ascribed  to  P  in  Genesis  are  of  this 
character,  and  one-fourth  of  them  are  found  but  once  in  the  book. 
How  can  they  be  said  to  characterize  the  document  and  at  the  same 
time  also  be  used  for  identifying  it  when  used  so  seldom  altogether  ? 
At  most  they  characterize  an  insignificant  portion  of  it.  The  weak- 
est form  of  this  argument  is  when  it  is  built  on  the  absence  of  legis- 
lative or  poetical  expressions  in  material  where  without  literary 
stupidity  they  could  not  be  found.  There  is  no  composition  which 
with  such  reasoning  might  not  be  proven  composite. 

Again,  alleged  characteristic  words  are  sometimes  taken  largely 
from  one  section  of  the  book,  appearing  again  rarely,  if  at  all,  ex- 
cept in  a  reproduction  of  the  thought  or  coloring  of  that  section. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  It  has  an 
extraordinary  diction  and  contains  signs  of  being  of  peculiar  origin. 
We  would  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  it  forms,  with  the  three 
next  succeeding  verses,  one  of  the  original  sources  of  Genesis.  But 
it  is  assumed  to  represent  P,  and,  strange  to  say,  18  out  of  42  words 
referred  to  this  document  in  Genesis  first  occur  in  it  and  in  but  few 
passages  elsewhere.  This  is  a  risky  proceeding,  especially  so  when 
to  this  fact  is  added  another, — that  critics  are  by  no  means  agreed 
in  ascribing  this  chapter  in  its  present  form  to  P.f 

Again,  words  are  named  as  peculiar  to  a  document  because,  as  the 
supposed  sources  have  been  delineated,  they  appear  alone  or  appear 
oftener  in  it  than  elsewhere.  This  is  obviously  a  non  sequitur^  how- 
ever often  they  may  appear.  It  might  be  merely  incidental,  as  can 
be  shown  by  almost  any  piece  of  composition.  To  make  the  argu- 
ment of  value  it  must  be  shown  that  there  was  occasion  for  the 

*  An  article  by  Kcenig  in  tlie  Studien  und  Krit.  (189B,  3),  "  Der  Spracli- 
beweis  in  der  Litteraturkritik,"  etc.,  we  have  already  referred  to.  It  is  late  in 
appearing  and  covers  tlie  ground  only  to  a  very  limited  degree,  though  in  itself 
valuable.     Cf.  also  his  De  criticce  s.  argumento,  etc.,  1879. 

\  Hebraica,  iv,  220,  v.  24:  "The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  supposed  by 
most  critics  not  to  be  original  with  P,  but  to  have  been  incorporated  by  him  in 
his  work  from  some  outside  source.  If  this  be  true,  it  should  not  be  cited  as  a 
specimen  of  P's  style.  The  sublimity  and  stateliness  which  characterize  it  are 
not  to  be  found  in  so  striking  a  degree  in  other  portions  of  P's  work.  Still, 
whatever  its  source,  the  chapter  has  been  thoroughly  worked  over  and  may 
fairly  represent  P,  while  ch.  ii.  1-4*,  which  is  eminently  characteristic  of  P, 
plentifully  [sic}  supplies  anything  that  may  be  lacking." 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  293 

occurrence  of  just  these  words  the  same  number  of  times  in  the  con- 
trasted document.  For  instance,  the  word  used  for  kind  or  species 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  held  to  be  characteristic  to  a 
marked  extent  of  P.  The  mere  assertion  of  it,  however,  does  not 
make  it  so.  The  passages  must  be  pointed  out  where  J  or  E  might 
have  had  the  word,  but  have  avoided  it  or  chosen  another  in  its 
place.     This  has  not  been  done.* 

Again,  as  said  above,  we  accept  the  present,  that  is,  the 
Massoretic  text,  as  being  sufficiently  correct  to  serve  as  a  test 
for  these  critical  questions.  Coosequentlj,  we  cannot  agree  that 
a  word  is  peculiar  to  a  documenj;  when  to  get  it  within  its 
bounds,  or  to  keep  it  there,  it  is  necessary  to  resort  to  the  theory 
of  (editorial)  textual  alteration.  This  device  is  so  frequent  with 
bur  analysts  that,  if  it  does  not  approximate  with  them  the  force 
of  a  rule,  it  goes  so  far  as  to  seriously  impair  their  reasoning. 
Many  of  these  cases  are  of  such  a  sort  that  no  excuse  can  be  found 
for  ascribing  the  given  expression  to  an  editor  except  that  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  theory  require  it.f  Again,  it  is  claimed  that,  in  many 
instances,  a  given  document,  instead  of  using  the  same  word  with 
its  companion  documents,  employs  a  synonym.  Yery  well,  does 
that  prove  it  to  be  an  independent  document?  The  Hebrew  lan- 
guage abounds  in  synonyms.  Is  there  any  rule  forbidding  the  same 
writer  from  using  them  ad  libitum  ?  One  of  the  most  emphasized 
here  is  Paddan-aram,  which  is  said  to  be  P's  word  for  J's  Mesopo- 
tamia, or  "  Aram  of  the  two  rivers."  But  the  latter  expression  is 
only  found  twice  in  the  Hexateuch  altogether,  and  the  passages  are 
as  widely  separated  as  Genesis  and  Deuteronomy,  while  the  former 
is  assured  to  P  only  by  an  unwarranted  interference  of  the  editor 
(xxxi.  18,  Ixvi.  15).  If  the  usage  were  uniform  and  frequent  in 
the  contrasted  documents,  the  proof  would  still  lack  stringency. 
It  is  not  assumed  that  each  writer  was  not  acquainted  with  both 
names. 

The  Book  of  Ruth  is  short,  and  its  integrity,  as  far  as  we 
know,  undisputed.  Yet  it  uses  two  different  expressions  in  speak- 
ing of  Bethlehem  :  "  Bethlehem  "  and  "  Bethlehem-judah  "  (i.  1, 
i.  19) ;  has  two  different  words  for  handmaid  (ii.  13,  iii.  9),  besides 
another  for  maiden  (ii.  5) ;  two  forms  of  the  same  word  for  rest 
(i.  9,  iii.  1);  two  words  for  leaving  off  (i.  18,  ii.  20) ;  two  words  for 
taking  a  wife,  one  of  them  quite  peculiar  (i.  4,  iv.  13);  and  uses  P's 
word  Shaddai  twice  alongside  of  Jehovah  (i.  20,  29).  No  one  as  yet 
has,  as  far  as  we  have  heard,  thought  of  making  these  facts  a  basis  for 

*  The  one  case  cited  by  Kcenig,  Einleit.,  is  not  relevant.     Cf.  the  language  of 
P,  vi.  19. 
t  Cf.,  for  example,  vi.  7,  vii.  B,  9,  17,  23. 


294  TH^  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

an  argument  to  prove  that  Ruth  is  a  compilation  from  two  or  more 
sources. 

Finally,  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  special  attention  has 
been  directed  bj  our  critics  to  only  this  one  kind  of  data  in  the 
several  sections  involved :  those  which  seem  to  indicate  division.  It 
has  been  correspondingly  diverted  from  those  of  another  sort  which 
tend  to  show  the  homogeneous  nature  of  the  material  throughout. 
The  collection  of  such  expressions  given  elsewhere,  it  is  safe  to  say, 
suffers  nothing,  either  in  the  number  or  the  quality  of  its  examples, 
when  compared  with  the  entire  sum  of  those  of  a  contrary  sort.  At 
the  same  time  their  validity  in  an  argument  for  the  unity  of  Genesis- 
over  against  the  current  scheme  cannot  be  called  in  question. 

These  considerations  in  view,  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  reasoning 
from  simultaneous  linguistic  differences  in  Genesis  as  a  proof  of  its 
origin  from  three  continuous  sources  ?  It  must  impress  every  candid 
mind  as  notably  inconsequent  and  feeble.  As  already  said,  it  might 
be  of  value  if  the  position  taken  could  be  fairly  defended  on  other 
grounds.  Left  to  itself,  as  it  must  largely  be,  to  furnish  the  weight 
of  the  argument,  it  fails  to  do  the  work  expected  of  it. 

And  so  we  conclude,  for  the  most  part,  our  review  of  the  theory  of 
the  origin  of  Genesis  now  most  widely  in  vogue  on  the  continent  of 
Europe,  and  having  many  able  adherents  in  England  and  America. 
The  arguments  offered  in  its  support  have  been  examined  with 
sufficient  minuteness  and  care  to  test  adequately  their  worth.  That 
we  have  always  succeeded  in  maintaining  a  spirit  of  fairness  and 
candor  in  their  treatment  we  will  not  assert,  but  only  that  it  has- 
been  honestly  attempted.  It  seems  clear,  however,  that  the  actual 
phenomena  of  the  book  of  Genesis  are  not  even  fairly  explained  by 
the  current  theory.  It  requires  too  many  wide-reaching  presuppo- 
sitions ;  in  short,  too  much  credulity  and  the  acceptance  of  too 
many  logical  fallacies.  "We  have,  accordingly,  next  to  inquire 
what  other  theory,  or  what  modifications  of  the  so-called  traditional 
one,  will  satisfy  fairly  well  the  conditions  of  the  problem, 

McCoRMiCK  Theological  Seminary.  Edwin  Cone  BisseLL, 


PHILLIPS  BROOKS  AS  A  THEOLOGIAN.  413 

be,  at  once  humanity  and  divinity.     Thus  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
divinity  is  weakened  into  the  deification  of  man. 

In  many  high  places  of  thought  this  reconstruction  of  the  Gospel 
is  now  enthroned  as  the  highest  expression  of  the  religious  con- 
sciousness. From  within  the  camp  of  the  covenanted  host  in  the 
very  language  of  the  word  which  it  sets  aside,  and  in  grosser  forms 
from  the  camp  of  the  enemy,  these  same  cries  are  echoing. 
"  The  distinction  between  the  divine  and  the  human  is  the  anti- 
Christ  of  theology " — this  is  the  "  message,"  which  one  modern 
"  prophet  "  bids  us  hear  under  dreadful  penalties.  "  God  is  human 
and  man  is  divine.  The  humanity  and  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God 
were  essentially  the  same."*  And  again :  "  Fellowship  with  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  is  the  common  atonement  which  all  who  believe 
in  Him  may  make  for  human  sin.  The  atonement  is  ours  as  well 
as  Christ's."  A  much  more  notable  writer  f  strikes  the  same  key- 
note, declaring  that  Paul  attributes  to  Jesus  "  a  kind  of  separation 
from  humanity,  and  a  kind  of  identification  with  God,  which  is 
practically  a  return  to  the  old  Jewish  opposition  of  God  and  man. 
....  In  this  way  he  seems  to  deny  the  union  between  the  human 
and  the  divine,  which  was  the  essential  lesson  of  the  life  of  Jesus." 
"  The  theological  doctrine  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  ....  has 
never  found  an  echo  in  the  voice  of  immediate  religious  experience. 
....  Christ  is  divine  just  because  he  is  the  most  human  of  men 
....  the  Son  of  man  who  reveals  what  is  in  humanity,  just  he- 
cause  he  is  the  purest  revelation  of  God  in  man."  It  would  be  easy 
to  append  a  catena  of  similar  quotations  gathered  almost  at  random 
from  current  theological  literature — all  variations  upon  the  one 
theme,  the  essential  identity  of  God  and  man.  Phillips  Brooks' 
latest  eulogist  X  phrases  it  boldly :  "  The  soul  of  man  is  con- 
substantial  with  God."  Lovely  and  pleasant  in  their  lives  the 
apostles  of  this  other  Gospel  may  be ;  but  all  the  more  because  they 
are,  and  because  this  prince  of  preachers  charmed  his  generation 
with  his  magnetic  eloquence  and  uttered  much  vital  truth,  the 
Church  of  God  must  not  fail  to  expose  the  glittering  delusions  so 
strangely  fused  therewith.  One  of  their  own  poets  also  §  has  fore- 
told what  must  come  to  pass  if  we  should  be  blind  to  the  attempt 
to  compromise  truth  and  falsehood — 

"  If  e'er  when  faith  had  fallen  asleep 
I  heard  a  voice  '  Believe  no  more, ' 
And  heard  an  ever-breaking  shore 
That  tumbled  in  the  Godless  deep." 
Brooklyn,  New  York.  JohN  Fox. 

*  The  New  Redemption,  by  Prof  George  D.  Ilerron,  pp.  48,  133. 

\2ne  Evolution  of  Religion,  by  Prof.  Edward  Caird,  Vol.ii,  pp.  213,  214,  232.  233. 

X  Tlie  Theology  of  Phillips  Brooks,  by  Rev.  L.  Parks,  D.D.,  p.  21. 

§  In  Memoriam,  cxxiii. 


II. 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  C0MP0SITI0:N^  OF 

GEIS"ESIS. 

THE  UNITY  AND  CONTINUITY  OF  GENESIS. 

THE  unity  of  a  literary  work  may  be  shown  in  a  variety  of 
ways.  The  most  natural  signs  of  unity  are  oneness  of  plan 
and  the  mutual  dependence  of  constituent  parts.  Over  against  a 
theory  of  compilation  from  various  sources  homogeneity  of  style 
and  vocabulary  also,  if  they  exist,  may  properly  be  urged  as  subsi- 
diary arguments.  A  general  external  unity  in  Genesis  is  now 
nowhere  denied.  Neither  is  it  denied  that  its  author,  or  final  com- 
piler, had  for  a  definite  purpose  to  prepare  a  work  introductory  to 
the  history  of  Israel  or  the  theocracy.  A  deeper  question,  how- 
ever, must  be  kept  in  view :  Is  the  actual,  demonstrable  unity  ot 
Genesis  only  of  such  a  sort  as  to  allow  the  theory  of  its  origin  now 
so  widely  current,  or  does  it,  per  se,  exclude  it  ? 

According  to  Tuch,*  the  aim  of  Genesis,  in  its  relation  to  the  other 
books  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  to  show  how,  under  the  special  care  of 
God,  His  chosen  people,  from  the  beginning,  were  separated  from 
other  peoples,  through  the  moral  elevation  of  the  patriarchs,  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob ;  how  they  were  fitted  for  theocratic  relations; 
and  how  to  these  same  patriarchs  was  revealed  the  fundamental  law 
of  such  relationship  and  was  given  the  promise  of  possessing 
Canaan.  Similarly  Ewald  if  "  The  goal  which  the  author  of  Gen- 
esis set  before  him  is  sufficiently  clear  from  his  work.  He  employs 
himself  with  the  fortunes  in  Canaan  of  the  three  ancestors  of  Israel. 
His  plan  is  to  trace  the  history  of  the  people  of  God  from  its  origin 
to  the  period  of  its  transplanting  to  Egypt." 

These  conceptions  of  the  immediate  purpose  of  Genesis  we  may 
adopt,  in  their  general  features,  and  proceed  to  inquire  how  the 
author  carried  them  out  in  detail.  First,  what  is  the  object  of  the 
matter  preliminary  to  the  history  of  Abraham  in  Genesis?  Evi- 
dently it  has  more  than  one  object.  As  it  respects  the  patriarch  per- 
sonally, it  is  first  to  show  his  genealogical  descent.     Genesis  presents 

*  Com.  ilber  die  Genesis,  xvii. 

f  Die  Composition  der  Genesis,  p.  267. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  415 

no  more  marked  feature  than  its  interest  in  the  genealogies  of  its 
principal  characters.  Accordingly,  it  was  not  enough  to  say  that 
Abraham  was  the  son  of  Terah.  He  had  Noah  also  for  an  ancestor. 
And  who  was  Noah  ?  Once  in  the  period  of  the  Flood,  it  was  im- 
possible not  to  go  further  back.  What  was  the  occasion  of  the 
dreadful  visitation?  Whence  the  evils  that  were  then  adjudged? 
Whence  these  divergent  moral  currents?  Whence  was  man  himself 
and  the  earth  on  which  he  exists  ? 

But  there  were  weightier  reasons  why  our  author  began  with  the 
beginning  of  things.  There  had  been  definite  historic  stages  before 
the  days  of  Abraham  ;  the  Flood  had  marked  the  close  of  one,  the 
confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel  another.  To  give  the  remarkable  call 
of  the  patriarch  its  proper  perspective  and  setting,  it  was  needful  to 
display  also  great  events.  A  new  start,  so  to  speak,  was  to  be  made 
with  him.  To  have  failed  to  indicate  this  fact  would  have  been  to 
fail  in  what  is  one  evident  aim  of  the  book.  Then  too,  in  Abra- 
ham there  was  the  principle  of  selection  illustrated.  Terah  had 
other  sons ;  Abraham  was  the  one  chosen,  separated  from  his  kin- 
dred by  special  call  to  receive  the  revelations  of  God  and  become 
an  exceptional  agent  of  His  will.  It  was  an  important  point  with 
the  writer  to  show  that  this  principle  had  not  taken  its  rise  with 
Abraham.  It  had  also  been  manifest  in  the  choice  of  Shem  from 
among  the  sons  of  Noah,  in  the  rescue  of  Noah  himself  out  of  the 
midst  of  a  drowning  world,  and  even  still  further  back  in  the  con- 
trasted lines  of  Cain  and  Seth.  Whence  the  necessity  of  such  selec- 
tion ?  Evil  was  in  conflict  with  the  good.  Whence  came  the  evil  ? 
From  God  ?  N"o  ;  the  world  and  man  as  made  by  God  were 
"  very  good." 

So  it  was  not  alone,  or  chiefly,  because  of  his  interest  in  tracing 
genealogies  that  the  author  of  Genesis  was  led  to  begin  his  work  with 
the  creation.  One  of  his  main  purposes  plainly  stamped  on  every 
part  of  the  book,  genealogies  not  excepted,  was  to  show  that  Israel, 
in  a  peculiar  sense,  was  a  chosen  people.  Its  history  is  represented 
not  indeed  as  something  apart  from  the  world's  history,  but  as,  under 
God's  control,  the  best  fruit  of  it  and  destined  finally  to  be  the 
world's  richest  blessing.  Let  us  notice  more  particularly  how  this 
law  of  selection  governs  throughout  the  work  and  so  serves  as  a 
peculiar  sign  of  its  unity. 

Cain,  as  already  suggested,  was  driven  forth  (iv.  14)  in  order  to 
leave  in  freedom  those  who  would  call  on  Jehovah's  name  (iv.  26), 
With  the  failure  of  this  plan  through  subsequent  intermarriage  of 
the  races,  Noah  was  chosen  for  a  new  trial.  When  a  like  moral 
deterioration  showed  itself  in  his  descendants,  culminating  once 
more  in  the  dominance  of  the  evil,  a  third  start  was  made  with 


416  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Abraham ;  but  under  the  same  law  of  separation  and  restriction. 
Terah  sets  out  with  his  family  for  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  Abraham 
and  Lot  alone  really  enter  it.  Soon  Lot  is  set  aside,  and  with  as 
manifest  a  purpose  as  previously  Cain,  Ham  and  Japheth  had  been. 
So  among  the  descendants  of  the  patriarch,  there  is  no  point  which 
there  is  a  more  special  effort  on  the  part  of  the  historian  to  make 
clear  than  that  it  is  not  Hagar's  son  or  Keturah's  children  who  are 
to  represent  the  chosen  line  of  promise,  but  Isaac,  the  son  of 
Sarah;  it  is  not  Esau  but  Jacob.  The  rejection  of  one  is  scarcely 
less  marked  than  the  choice  of  the  other. 

It  is  worth  noting  how  this  fact  appears  in  what  one  might  regard 
as  the  most  unchangeable  features  of  the  book,  its  genealogical  lists. 
Thej^  are  constructed  in  a  way  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  it  was  a 
special  object  of  the  writer  to  display  it.  We  are  given,  for  instance, 
a  list  of  Cain's  descendants  as  well  as  of  those  of  Seth.  The  difference 
is  that,  in  the  case  of  Cain,  there  the  matter  drops;  while  in  that  of 
his  brother  the  genealogy  is  made  the  connecting  link  conducting  to 
the  history.  Of  the  sons  of  Noah,  the  genealogy  of  each  is  given ; 
Shem's  alone  is  represented  in  the  following  narrative.  And  there 
is  a  curious  circumstance  which  here  enhances  the  contrast.  The 
order  of  the  sons'  names  as  they  usually  occur  is  Shem,  Ham, 
Japheth ;  but  the  order  of  the  genealogy  is  Japheth,  Ham,  Shem, 
— evidently  in  order  to  make  the  transition  to  the  succeeding  narra- 
tive more  easy  and  natural. 

In  the  same  way  in  Terah 's  family  (xix.  37,  38),  Lot's  descend- 
ants are  named  only  to  pass  out  of  the  immediate  history,  while  it 
goes  on  with  Abraham.  Of  Abraham's  seed,  the  descendants  of 
Ishmael  (xxv.  12-15)  and  of  Keturah  (xxv.  2-4)  are  given ;  the 
story  concerns  itself  only  with  Isaac.  So,  in  each  case,  the  sub- 
ordinate branches  of  the  family  are  first  disposed  of,  the  slag,  as  it 
were,  separated  from  the  ore,  in  order  then  to  go  on  with  what  was 
the  main  concern  of  the  writer.  Of  Nahor's  seed  there  is  a  list  of 
eight  names  recorded  of  whom  nothing  more  is  said  excepting  of 
Eebecca.  Of  Isaac's  seed,  the  descendants  of  Esau  are  named,  to 
disappear  from  Genesis;  while  the  story  of  Jacob  and  his  sons  occu- 
pies the  remainder  of  the  book.  This  peculiarity  of  the  work  van- 
ishes at  this  point  simpl}^  for  the  reason  that  with  Jacob  the  line  of 
promise  is  complete  for  the  time.  Of  the  same  purport  is  the  way 
in  which  the  family  relations  of  the  chosen  people  are  jealously 
guarded  from  corruption  or  confusion.  It  had  been  intermarriages, 
a  free  intermingling  on  common  ground,  that  had  been  the  fatal 
step  in  the  two  earlier  epochs  of  the  race.  Now  there  was  to  be 
exclusion.  This  is  quite  sufficient  to  explain  what  otherwise  might 
have  been  puzzling  in  the  narrative ;  why,  three  times,  incidents  are 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  417 

given  in  the  lives  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  in  connection  with  the 
royal  courts  in  Egypt  and  Gerar  which  are  very  similar  in  their 
general  character,  and  could  not  be  regarded  as  creditable  to  the 
patriarchs  (xii.  10-20,  xx.  1-18,  xxvi.  6-11),  It  was  in  order  not 
to  leave  any  ground  for  suspicion,  on  occasions  when  such  suspicion 
might  easily  have  arisen,  that  the  promised  seed  was  not  in  the  line 
of  promise.  With  special  emphasis  it  was  impressed  on  Abraham's 
mind,  in  the  presence  of  misgivings,  that  Sarah  should  be  the  mother 
of  the  promised  seed.  The  peremptoriness  of  race  separation  could 
hardly  have  been  given  a  sign  clearer  than  in  the  rite  of  circumcis- 
ion. Ishmael,  "the  wild  ass  among  men,"  might  ally  himself  in 
marriage  with  the  people  of  his  mother ;  Esau  take  to  him  wives  of 
the  daughters  of  Canaan,  though  to  the  grief  of  his  parents;  but  with 
Isaac  and  Jacob  it  was  not  to  be  tolerated.  "  Abraham  said  unto 
his  servant  ....  I  will  make  thee  swear  by  the  Lord,  the  God  of 
heaven  and  the  God  of  earth,  that  thou  shalt  not  take  a  wife  for  my 
son  of  the  daughters  of  the  Canaanites  among  whom  I  dwell"  (xxiv. 
3).  It  is  a  most  significant  fact  to  which  attention  cannot  be  too 
strongly  directed,  as  showing  the  importance  of  this  matter  in  the  view 
of  the  author  of  Genesis,  that  the  story  of  the  procuring  a  wife  for 
Isaac  is  given  an  extraordinary  prominence.  It  is  the  longest 
chapter  in  Genesis.  It  occupies  two  and  one-half  of  its  fifty-eight 
pages.  Even  greater  prominence  is  given  to  the  same  matter  in 
Jacob's  history.  "  Isaac  called  Jacob  and  blessed  him,  and  charged 
him,  and  said  unto  him,  Thou  shalt  not  take  a  wife  of  the  daughters 
of  Canaan  "  (xxviii.  1).  In  Genesis  the  spirit  of  exclusion  as  it  re- 
spected other  nations  becomes  so  strong  as  even  to  appear  almost  like 
repugnance,  as  shown  in  the  case  of  Hamor  the  son  of  Shechem  and 
the  daughter  of  Jacob  (chaps,  xxxiv  and  xxxv). 

Could  there  well  be  stronger  evidence  than  these  examples  aftbrd 
that  the  author  of  Genesis  deliberately  set  out  so  to  use  the  sources 
at  his  command  as  to  show  what  is  said  in  Deuteronomy  (vii.  6),  that 
God  had  chosen  Israel  "  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto  himself,  above 
all  peoples  that  are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  "  Plainly,  too,  he 
made  the  freest  use  of  his  sources  for  the  end  he  had  in  view.  He 
was  not  their  slave,  but  their  master.  Far  beyond  the  impression 
made  upon  us  of  mere  material  of  various  sorts  to  be  conserved  or 
regarded,  is  the  decided  pragmatism  of  the  writer.  Genesis  has  no 
more  marked  literary  characteristic  than  the  purpose  which  rules 
in  it. 

We  have  shown  this  as  it  respects  the  divine  choice  of  a  people  ; 
it  is  no  less  manifest  as  it  respects  the  choice  of  a  land.  Here  the 
beginning  is  made  with  Abraham.  If  we  except  the  evident  fore- 
shadowing of  the  destiny  of  Canaan  already  in  chaps,  ix.  20-26  and 


418  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

X.  15-19,  the  end,  which  is  the  Conquest,  lies  outside  the  bounds  of 
Genesis.  If  one  purpose  bind  the  first  two-thirds  of  the  book 
together  in  an  unmistakable  unity,  the  other  does  it  for  the  last 
two-thirds.  Abraham  is  commanded  of  God  to  go  into  a  country 
which  He  will  show  him  (xii.  1).  He  proceeds  to  Canaan,  fulfilling 
God's  purpose  as  truly  thereby  as  he  would  have  done  had  it  not 
been  the  original  intention  of  Terah  to  emigrate  thither.  We  are 
not  left  in  ignorance  of  the  true  state  of  things.  "  The  Canaanite," 
it  is  said,  "  was  then  in  the  land."  But  this  declaration  is  immedi- 
ately followed  by  another  that  "  God  appeared  unto  Abram  and 
said,  Unto  thy  seed  " — note  the  exact  nature  of  the  first  promise — 
"will  I  give  this  land"  (xii.  4-7).  From  this  time  the  subject  is 
never  long  out  of  sight.  In  the  following  chapter  it  is  repeated, 
after  the  patriarch's  separation  from  Lot,  with  added  breadth  and 
intensity  (xiii.  14, 15).  Two  chapters  later  the  bounds  are  named — 
"  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  Euphrates  " — and  the  gift  is 
ratified  by  a  covenant  (xv.  18).  Two  chapters  later  still  it  is  said, 
in  connection  with  the  rite  of  circumcision :  "  And  I  will  give  unto 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  of  thy  sojournings,  all  the 
land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  possession."  The  promise  is 
never  simply  repeated  in  the  old  terms.  Again  to  Isaac,  when 
tempted  through  famine  to  leave  the  country,  it  is  said  (xxvi.  3-5) : 
"  Sojourn  in  this  land,  and  1  will  be  with  thee,  and  will  bless  thee ; 
for  unto  thee  and  unto  thy  seed  I  will  give  all  these  lands,  and  I 
will  establish  the  oath  which  I  sware  unto  Abraham  thy  father." 
This  becomes  afterwards  the  favorite  form  of  reference  to  the 
promise.  It  is  an  interesting  circumstance  that  while  both  Abra- 
ham and  Jacob  temporarily  left  the  land  of  Canaan,  Isaac  was  not 
permitted  to  do  so.  Once  more  the  promise  is  repeated  to  Jacob 
in  terms  recalling  earlier  utterances  (xxviii.  13-15),  on  the  occa- 
sion of  his  fleeing  from  the  wrath  of  Esau  unto  Mesopotamia,  and 
again  on  his  return  (xxxv.  12)  :*  "  And  the  land  which  I  gave  unto 
Abraham  and  Isaac,  to  thee  I  will  give  it,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee  will  I  give  the  land."  So  likewise  on  the  patriarch's  going 
down  to  Egypt.  He  seems  to  hesitate  to  make  the  change  without 
the  divine  permission,  which  he  secures  at  Beersheba  (xlvi.  4) :  "I 
will  go  down  with  thee  into  Egypt ;  and  I  will  also  surely  bring 
thee  up  again."  As  was  natural  to  expect,  Jacob  did  not  forget 
this  pledge.  When  death  was  drawing  near  he  made  Joseph,  who 
alone  had  the  power  to  bring  it  about,  swear  by  a  peculiarly  solemn 
form  of  oath,  found  elsewhere  only  in  the  history  of  Abraham,  that 

*  The  importance  which  is  attached  to  this  first  appearance  of  Jeliovah  to 
Jacob  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  it  is  referred  to  on  the  occasion  of  each  subse- 
quent one  (xxxi.  13,  xxxv.  1,  7,  xlviii.  3,  15,  16). 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  419 

he  should  not  be  buried  in  Egypt  (xlvii.  29,  30) :  "  When  I  sleep 
with  my  fathers,  thou  shalt  carry  me  out  of  Egypt,  and  bury  me  in 
their  burying  place.  And  he  said,  I  will  do  as  thou  hast  said.  And 
he  said,  Swear  unto  me :  and  he  sware  unto  him."  The  same  assur- 
ance he  afterwards  required  from  the  remaining  sons  (xlix.  29-32). 
And  Genesis  is  brought  to  an  appropriate  close  with  a  circumstan- 
tial record  of  the  burial  of  Jacob  in  Machpelah  by  his  sons,  includ- 
ing Joseph,  together  with  a  record  of  the  dying  words  of  Joseph 
(1.  24,  25) :  "  I  die ;  but  God  will  surely  visit  you,  and  bring  you  up 
out  of  this  land  unto  the  land  which  he  sware  unto  Abraham,  to 
Isaac  and  to  Jacob.  And  Joseph  took  an  oath  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  saying,  God  will  surely  visit  you,  and  ye  shall  carry  up  my 
bones  from  hence."  This  they  also  did  as  we  are  told  in  Joshua 
(xxiv.  32),  burying  them  in  Shechem,  "in  the  parcel  of  ground 
which  Jacob  bought  of  the  sons  of  Hamor,  the  father  of  Shechem." 

Not  only  is  the  matter  of  the  future  possession  of  the  land  of 
Canaan  by  Israel  thus  conspicuously  and  indelibly  stamped  on 
every  principal  feature  of  the  story,  there  is  an  evident  purpose 
also  to  show  that  it  would  be  no  usurpation  on  Israel's  part  to  have 
and  to  hold  it.  It  was,  first  and  foremost,  a  warranty  from  God 
(xii.  7).  Its  present  inhabitants  were  there  by  sufferance  alone. 
Through  the  grossest  forms  of  sin  they  had  forfeited  any  supposable 
rights  arising  from  preoccupancy.  The  detailed  description  of 
Sodom  and  its  inhabitants  (chaps,  xviii,  xix)  is  no  mere  episode. 
"  Now  the  men  of  Sodom  were  wicked  and  sinners  against  the  Lord 
exceedingly  "  (xiii.  13).  The  sole  reason  given  why  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  not  put  in  immediate  possession  of  the  country  was 
that  the  iniquity  of  the  Amorites  was  not  yet  full  (xv.  13-16). 

Pains  are  taken  to  show  that,  although  the  patriarchs  on  certain 
occasions  had  temporarily  vacated  the  land,  it  was  with  the  express 
intention  of  returning  thither  (xii.  10,  xxvi.  1,  xxviii.  10,  xlvi. 
1,  etc.).  They  never  renounced,  so  to  speak,  their  right  of  domi- 
cile. It  was,  accordingly,  no  misnomer  to  apply  to  Canaan  the 
title  in  the  later  parts  of  Genesis,  "  land  of  the  fathers  "  (xxviii.  41). 
Critics  have  objected  to  the  phrase,  "  the  land  of  the  Hebrews,"  in 
the  mouth  of  Joseph  as  an  anachronism  (xl.  15).  If,  however,  "  the 
land  of  the  Perizzite  "  and  "  the  land  of  the  Hivite  "  were  in  place, 
"  the  land  of  the  Hebrews  "  was  quite  as  much  so.  A  tendency  is 
clearly  observable  to  bring  into  view  the  part  the  patriarchs  took 
in  the  affairs  of  the  land.  Abraham,  on  winning  against  large  odds 
an  important  victory  over  its  oppressors — though  he  had  interposed 
particularly  on  Lot's  account — is  publicly  blessed  by  the  priest- 
king  of  Salem.  With  the  political  leaders,  however,  he  asserts  his 
independence,  refusing  an  offered  reward  lest  it  should  be  said  that 


420  THE  PRE  SB  YTERIAN  AND  R  EFORMED  RE  VIE  W. 

thej  had  made  Abraham  rich  (chap.  xiv).  Abimelech  proffers  him 
the  freedom  of  the  land  (xx.  15),  as  did  later  his  successor  with 
Isaac  (xxvi.  26-31),  and  desires  an  alliance  with  him. 

On  what  other  literary  ground  is  it,  moreover,  that  an  entire 
chapter  is  devoted  to  an  account  of  the  purchase  by  Abraham  of  a 
burying  place?  The  most  minute  details  of  the  transaction  are 
thought  worthy  of  record,  including  the  witnesses  and  the  purchas- 
ing price  to  a  shekel.  On  every  subsequent  reference  to  the  affair — 
three  times  altogether  in  the  book — the  fact  that  it  was  a  purchase 
from  Ephron  the  Hittite  and  that  the  adjoining  field  was  included 
in  the  sale  are  noted  (xxv.  9,  10,  xlix.  29-32,  1.  13).  So  it  is 
stated  that  Jacob  bought  a  piece  of  ground  in  Shechem  when  he 
returned  from  Paddau-aram,  paying  for  it  one  hundred  kesitahs,  a 
coin  named  only  here  in  the  Bible.  This  purchase  he  looked  upon 
as  giving  him  proprietary  rights,  and  we  find  him  later,  apparently, 
bestowing  it  upon  Joseph  as  a  legacy  (xlviii.  22). 

Nor  is  this  all.  In  the  choice  of  the  people  we  saw  how,  through- 
out the  narrative,  the  principle  of  separation  and  elimination  dom- 
inated. It  is  equally  true,  and  along  the  same  lines,  as  it  respects 
the  land.  It  is  a  feature  that  concerns  not  alone  the  native  popu- 
lation, but  also  the  descendants  of  the  patriarchs  outside  one  clear 
line  of  demarcation.  It  is  not  enough  for  the  writer  to  describe 
how  by  Lot's  voluntary  choice  of  the  plain  of  the  Jordan,  Abra- 
ham was  left  free  range  in  Canaan.  It  must  be  noted  later  that, 
through  their  incestuous  origin,  his  descendants  made  impossible 
every  claim  to  the  possession  of  the  land  along  with  Abraham's 
seed  (xix.  30-38).  An  effective  farewell  is  taken  of  them  in  the 
words,  "  The  same  is  the  father  of  the  Moabites,"  "  the  same  is  the 
father  of  the  children  of  Ammon  unto  this  day."  Of  Ishmael  it  is 
predicted  before  his  birth  that  his  home  will  be  apart  from  his 
brethren  (xyi.  12).  Of  his  descendants  we  are  carefully  informed 
that  they  dwelt  from  Havilah  unto  Shur  that  is  before  Egypt 
(xxv.  18).  So  the  second  possibility  of  a  disputed  claim  was  shut 
out.  In  the  case  of  Keturah's  children,  the  object  of  the  narrative 
could  not  be  plainer  were  it  directly  stated  (xxv.  6):  "But  unto 
the  sons  of  the  concubines  which  Abraham  had,  Abraham  gave 
gifts ;  and  he  sent  them  away  from  Isaac  his  son,  while  he  yet  lived, 
eastward,  unto  the  east  country."  So  far,  then,  an  unclouded  title 
belonged  to  Abraham  and  by  him  was  transmitted  unimpaired  to 
his  son. 

How  was  it  with  Jacob?  Here  matters  are  more  involved. 
Esau  is  the  first-born.  In  a  moment  of  physical  distress  he  sells  his 
birthright.  Still  he  looks  and  works  for  the  coveted  blessing.  In  this 
he  is  shrewdly  outwitted  by  Jacob  and  Rebecca.    Yet  the  undoubted 


THE  ORIOJN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  421 

physical  power  is  on  the  side  of  "  My  lord  Esau."  Will  he  not  secure 
by  force  what  he  had  failed  to  get  through  natural  channels? 
The  interest  of  the  story,  through  several  chapters,  centres  in  this 
contest.  All  the  more  marked,  therefore,  is  the  issue,  Esau  had 
been  flitting,  apparently  undetermined,  back  and  forth  from  Canaan 
to  Mount  Seir.  On  Jacob's  return  to  Canaan,  after  the  joint  burial 
of  their  father,  to  our  great  surprise  he  takes  voluntary  and  final 
leave  of  the  promised  land.  "  And  Esau  took  his  wives  and  his 
sons,  and  his  daughters,  and  all  the  souls  of  his  house,  and  his  cattle 
and  all  his  beasts,  and  all  his  possessions,  which  he  had  gathered  in 
the  land  of  Canaan  and  went  into  a  land  away  from  his  brother 
Jacob"  (xxxvi.  6).  The  event  itself  and  the  imperative  reason 
behind  it  could  not  well  have  been  more  conspicuously  displayed. 

In  chap,  xxxix  the  historian  had  been  particular  to  note  a  mere 
incidental  peril  to  the  patriarch's  rights  from  another  quarter. 
Laban  and  his  friends  had  been  wounded  in  their  feelings,  and 
believed  themselves  wronged  in  their  property  interests  by  the  fugi- 
tive Jacob.  Might  not  this  become  the  occasion  of  future  trouble  ? 
Laban's  formal  pledge  is  made  to  settle  it  (xxxix.  52) :  "  This  heap 
be  a  witness,  and  the  pillar  be  witness  that  I  will  not  pass  over  this 
heap  to  thee,  and  that  thou  shalt  not  pass  over  this  heap  and  this 
pillar  unto  me,  for  harm."  Thus  Jacob  is  left  in  undisturbed  pos- 
session of  his  ancestral  rights  in  Canaan  and  the  aim  of  the  writer, 
as  far  as  it  concerns  this  second  principal  point,  reaches  its  culmina- 
tion. If  one  clear  purpose,  like  a  silken  cord,  runs  through  the 
pages  of  Genesis  that  God  would  separate  unto  Himself  a  people  of 
His  choice,  another  runs  parallel  to  it  in  every  part,  that  for  His 
people,  at  the  appointed  time.  He  would  have  ready_  a  land  that 
should  be  all  their  own. 

There  is  a  third  principal  thought  displayed  on  the  pages  of 
Genesis  which  should  not  be  overlooked;  it  is  that  the  patriarchs, 
not  without  trials  to  their  faith  or  discipline,  entered  into  their 
promised  possessions.  This  is  particularly  true  of  Abraham  and 
Jacob  ;  it  is  less  true  of  Isaac,  of  whom  we  have  little  information.* 
No  sooner  is  the  promise  of  a  numerous  seed  made  to  Abraham 
than  the  proving  of  his  faith  begins.  He  is  seventy-five  years  of 
age.  Sarah  is  barren.  His  riches  increase  apace,  but  not  his  fam- 
ily. Meantime  the  promise  is  renewed ;  once  on  his  entering  Ca- 
naan, again  after  his  separation  from  Lot:  "Unto  thy  seed  will  I 

*  Though  he,  too,  had  suflacient  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  faith  and  hope, 
for  Rebecca  was  barren.  During  twenty  years  Ihey  waited  for  the  promised 
seed  and  when  it  came  it  was  in  a  way  to  cause  the  gravest  apprehensions  (xxv. 
23,  23).  Isaac's  death,  his  burial  by  Jacob  and  Esau,  recorded  along  with  a  list 
of  Jacob's  sons  (xxxv.  23-29),  opens  the  notable  tendency  of  the  historian  to 
keep  strictly  to  his  theme. 


422  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

give  this  land  "  (xii.  7).  "  And  I  will  make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of 
the  earth  :  so  that  if  a  man  can  number  the  dust  of  the  earth,  then 
shall  thy  seed  also  be  numbered"  (xiii.  16).  Still  the  expected 
blessing  came  not.  After  he  had  been  in  the  land  a  period  of  years, 
we  hear  him  uttering  his  thought  in  prayer  after  this  manner :  "  0 
Lord  Jehovah,  what  wilt  thou  give  me,  seeing  I  go  childless,  and 
he  that  shall  be  possessor  of  mine  house  is  Dammesek  Eliezer." 
"  Behold  to  me  thou  hast  given  no  seed  "  (xv.  2,  3).  Now  the 
promise  takes  a  more  definite  form  :  "  This  man  shall  not  be  thine 
heir ;  but  he  that  shall  come  forth  out  of  thine  own  bowels  shall  be 
thine  heir  "  (xv,  4).  Abraham  believes,  but  asks  for  a  sign.  It  is 
given  him  with  a  fourth  renewal  of  the  promise  (xv.  18).  Time 
goes  on  until  ten  years  have  passed  since  the  patriarch's  arrival  in 
Canaan.  His  faith  begins  again  to  waver.  An  heir  born  of  his  own 
flesh  had  been  assured  to  him,  but  should  it  be  by  Sarah  ?  Abetted 
by  her,  he  takes  Hagar  as  wife,  and  in  his  eighty-sixth  year  she 
bears  him  Ishmael.  Hagar  is  vouchsafed  a  communication  from 
the  heavens ;  they  are  now  seemingly  shut  to  Abraham  (xvi.  7). 
Thirteen  years  longer  he  waits.  The  dates  are  supplied,  no  doubt, 
with  deliberate  intention.  Then  Jehovah  appears  again,  and  for 
the  fifth  time  communicates  with  His  waiting  servant.  Hagar's 
child  was  not  the  promised  seed.  Within  a  year  Sarah  should  bear 
a  son ;  his  name  should  be  called  Isaac.  Through  him  she  should 
become  the  "  mother  of  nations."  This  was  Jehovah's  covenant. 
As  a  token  of  reciprocation,  Abraham  must  adopt  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision for  his  offspring  (chap.  xvii). 

Hopes  long  deferred  now  seem  on  the  eve  of  realization  ;  but 
Sarah's  faith  is  in  need  of  quickening ;  hence  a  special  theophany 
is  granted  on  her  account,  but  with  a  definite  reference  to  the  last : 
*'  At  the  set  time  I  will  return  unto  thee  ....  and  Sarah  shall 
have  a  son  "  (xviii.  14).  Meantime  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  takes  place,  with  Lot's  rescue,  and,  what  is  more  to  the 
point,  Abraham's  journey  to  Gerar  and  his  trial  with  Abimelech. 
It  is  not  without  a  purpose,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  writer  gives 
this  incident ;  it  is  with  a  special  purpose  that  he  introduces  it  at 
just  this  point.  At  last  the  event  predicted  twenty-five  years  before 
occurs,  by  the  very  course  of  the  history  plainly  constructed  on  the 
plan  of  a  graduated  series  of  events.  The  attention  had  been  con- 
tinually and  ever  more  closely  riveted  upon  it.  *'  And  Sarah  con- 
ceived and  bare  Abraham  a  son  in  his  old  age,  at  the  set  time  of 
which  God  had  spoken  to  him  "  (xxi.  2), 

But  the  climax  has  not  yet  been  reached.  It  lay  in  the  divine 
command  to  Abraham  to  take  this  son  of  his,  this  only  son  whom 
he  loved,  and  offer  him  up  as  a  burnt  offering.     When  in  unques- 


TEE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  423 

tioning  obedience  he  carried  out,  as  far  as  with  him  was  possible, 
the  injunction,  the  utterances  of  Jehovah  to  him  reach  their  culmi- 
nating point  (xxii.  16),  The  revelation  is  in  a  form  so  Avonderful 
that  afterwards  there  is  no  more  favorite  designation  of  Canaan,  as 
we  have  intimated,  than  as  "  the  land  which  the  Lord  sware  unto 
Abraham  "  (xxvi.  3,  1.  24).  "  By  myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  the 
Lord,  because  thou  hast  done  this  thing,  and  hast  not  withheld  thy 
son,  thine  only  son :  that  in  blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  and  in  multi- 
plying I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the  stars  of  heaven  and  as  the 
sand  which  is  upon  the  seashore." 

There  had  been  at  the  beginning  the  promise  of  a  numerous  pos- 
terity ;  then  that  it  should  be  from  his  own  body  ;  then  that  it 
should  be  through  Sarah  ;  then  the  name  of  the  child  and  the  date 
of  his  birth  are  given;  and  at  last,  after  years  of  happy  possession, 
the  supreme  trial  whose  issue  assured  to  the  patriarch  the  absolute 
certainty  of  all  that  had  been  previously  spoken.  Or,  tracing  the 
progression  of  thought  along  another  line,  we  first  find  Jehovah 
speaking  with  Abraham  (xii.  1) ;  then  appearing  to  him  (xii.  7) ; 
then  ratifying  a  covenant  with  him  through  a  visible  sign  (xv.  17, 
18) ;  then  appointing,  on  his  part,  a  token  of  the  mutual  covenant 
(xvii.  9) ;  then  sharing  with  him  as  a  guest  a  covenant  meal,  an 
act  elsewhere  unexampled  in  the  Bible  (xviii.  8) ;  and,  finally, 
swearing  by  Himself  an  oath  of  eternal  faithfulness  to  all  that  He 
had  promised,  and  accounting  him,  as  Isaiah  notes,  His  friend  (cf. 
Isa.  xii.  8).  Thus  the  story  of  Abraham,  in  this  particular,  bespeaks 
from  beginning  to  end  a  unity  of  purpose  that  is  unmistakable. 

Jacob's  trials  naturally  had  an  individual  stamp,  but  they  are  run 
in  the  same  general  mold.  To  no  small  extent  they  were  the  re- 
sult of  his  own  lack  of  faith  and  honesty,  but  they  were  real.  His 
protracted  banishment  from  his  father's  house  ;  his  peculiarly  irk- 
some service  with  Laban  ;  his  long  continued  and  well-grounded 
fear  of  Esau ;  the  peril  into  which  he  was  brought  by  his  lawless 
sons  at  Shechem  ;  the  temporary  absence  of  Judah  and  his  low  life 
with  Hira,  the  Adullamite  ;  above  all  the  deception  practiced  upon 
him  who  had  grievously  deceived  his  own  father,  by  his  sons  in 
turn,  in  the  matter  of  Joseph — these  facts  absorb  the  material  of  the 
book  in  this  part  of  it  and  form  a  closely  jointed  narrative. 

Like  those  of  Abraham  and  Jacob,  Joseph's  history  begins  with 
revelations  from  heaven  in  which  his  future  is  foreshadowed ;  and 
like  them  he  makes  his  way  through  trials  to  his  providential  des- 
tiny. The  material,  though-  in  itself  tolerably  complete,  is  of  one 
pattern  with  what  goes  before  and  looks  towards  the  same  end  ;  to 
show  how  God  was  preparing  a  people  for  Himself.  In  fact,  it  is  the 
life  of  Jacob  which  furnishes  the  key  to  that  of  Joseph.     There  it 


424  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

has  its  beginning,  that  gives  point  to  the  transition?,  and  in  the  ex- 
altation of  Joseph  it  comes  to  its  best  fruitage  and  receives  its  high- 
est reward.  One  is  apt  to  overlook  that  this  very  turn  is  given  to 
the  narrative  of  Joseph  by  its  title.  It  begins  with  the  words, 
"These  are  the  generations  of  Jacob  "  (xxxvii.  2);  just  as  Jacob's 
history  is  placed  under  the  rubric :  "  These  are  the  generations  of 
Isaac  "  (xxv.  19). 

After  Joseph  is  once  fairly  established  in  Egypt,  the  one  thing  of 
importance  before  the  writer's  mind  seems  to  be  to  get  Jacob  and 
his  family  there.  When  they  are  there  and  have  been  presented 
to  Pharaoh  and  had  got  them  possessions  therein  and  were  "  multi- 
plied exceedingly,"  the  next  thing  in  order  is  the  decease  of 
Jacob.  This  stage  of  history  was  now  complete ;  the  family 
was  ready  to  give  place  to  the  nation.  As  Noah,  Abraham 
and  Isaac  had  done,  Jacob  bestows  his  blessing  upon  his 
sons  before  his  death.  It  is  surprising  how  much  of  the  history 
of  the  patriarch  and  his  children  reappears  in  this  blessing, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  family  register  placed  a  little  earlier 
(chap.  xlvi).  We  recall  again  his  experiences  in  Haran,  includ- 
ing the  birth  of  his  children  severally ;  the  death  of  Judah's  sons  \ 
Dinah's  misfortune  at  Shechem,  with  the  lamentable  part  taken  in 
it,  to  their  cost,  by  Simeon  and  Levi ;  Reuben's  shameless  act  with 
Bilhah,  by  which  he  lost  his  birthright ;  and  especially  the  place 
which,  in  the  later  time,  Judah  had  won  in  the  father's  heart. 
Nothing  is  needed  but  a  bare  rehearsal  of  the  facts  recorded  to  show 
how  inseparably  they  are  woven  together  like  warp  and  woof  in  the 
fabric  of  the  story. 

There  is  one  thing  more  giving  a  peculiar  cast  to  Genesis  which 
should  not  be  wholly  omitted  :  I  mean  its  predictive  element.  De- 
li tzsch  speaks  of  three  concentric  circles  of  revelation  :  (1)  the  seed 
of  the  woman,  who  is  the  conqueror  of  evil  in  mankind ;  (2)  the 
seed  of  the  patriarchs,  who  is  the  blessing  of  the  nations ;  (3)  the 
seed  of  David,  who  is  the  salvation  and  glory  of  Israel.  Their  order 
is  exactly  reversed  in  the  fulfillment.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that 
two  of  these  great  circles  lie  within  the  bounds  of  Genesis.  Of 
course  our  present  interest  in  the  matter  is  not  so  directly  theo- 
logical and  religious  as  literary.  How  far  do  these  predictions  make 
a  feature  of  the  book  inclusive  of  its  several  constituent  parts  ? 

It  has  been  customary  and  seems  reasonable  to  connect  the  prom- 
ise of  the  coming  seed  (iii.  15)  with  Eve's  words  (iv.  1) :  "I  have 
gotten  a  man  with  (the  help  of)  the  Lord  ;"  and  with  Lamech — the 
tenth  from  Adam,  the  number  of  completion — who  exclaimed  on 
the  birth  of  Noah  (v.  29) :  "  The  same  shall  comfort  us  ....  be- 
cause of  the  ground  which  Jehovah  hath  cursed."    Clearly,  moreover, 


THE  ORIOIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  425 

in  the  mind  of  the  historian,  who  has  arranged  his  matter  with 
this  in  view,  it  was  Shem  among  whose  descendants  the  prom- 
ised good  should  come  to  bloom.  Canaan  should  be  his  servant ; 
Japheth  dwell  in  his  tents  (ix,  26,  27).  Again,  Abraham  is  Terah's 
son,  the  tenth,  in  turn,  in  the  goodly  line  of  Shem,  and  in  him  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.  With  Abraham  the 
promise  entered  its  second  stage  of  development.  It  is  no  longer 
the  seed  of  the  woman,  but  that  of  the  patriarchs  which  is  the  goal 
of  hope.  How  this  special  hope  centres  again  in  Isaac,  then  in 
Jacob,  and  what  pains  are  taken  to  show  beyond  all  cavil  that  there 
had  been  no  divergence  in  the  line  of  blessing,  we  have  seen.  In 
similar  terms  the  promise  is  repeated  to  each  of  them.  To  the 
former  it  is  said :  "  I  will  establish  the  oath  which  I  sware  unto 
Abraham  thy  father  .  ,  .  .  and  in  thy  seed  shall  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed  "  (xxvi,  3,  4),  To  the  latter  :  "  I  am  the  Lord,  the 
God  of  Abraham,  thy  father  "  (again,  "  thy  father  "  to  Jacob),  "  and 
the  God  of  Isaac  ....  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families 
of  the  earth  be  blessed  "  (xxviii.  13,  14 ;  cf.  xxviii.  3,  4). 

From  Jacob  the  blessing  would  naturally  have  descended  to  Eeu- 
ben  the  first  born.  Isaac  was  Abraham's  only  son  by  Sarah.  Esau 
had  voluntarily  relinquished  his  birthright  in  favor  of  Jacob,  and 
God  had  accepted  and  ratified  the  transfer.  On  which  of  Jacob's 
sons  would  it  fall  ?  Eeuben  had  forfeited  his  claim  by  incest 
(xlix,  3) ;  Simeon  and  Levi  more  by  their  cruelty  to  the  Shechemites 
(xlix.  5-7)-  Hence  the  blessing  is  divided  ;  the  material  rights  of 
primogeniture  go  to  the  favorite  Joseph  (xlix.  22-26) ;  the  primacy 
to  Judah,  the  fourth  son  (xlix.  8-12).  To  him  his  father's  sons 
should  bow  down.  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,"  is 
the  language  of  the  announcement,  "  nor  the  ruler's  stafl"  from  be- 
tween his  feet  until  Shiloh  come  and  unto  him  shall  the  obedience 
of  the  peoples  be."  Whichever  of  the  disputed  renderings  of  the 
more  essential  clause  be  adopted — "until  Shiloh  come;"  "until 
he  come  to  Shiloh  ;"  "  until  that  [that  is,  the  kingdom]  come  which 
is  his  " — it  is  impossible  to  vacate  the  passage  of  the  great  hope.  It 
has  been  growing  in  intensity,  while  gradually  narrowing  in  com- 
pass and  range  throughout  our  book.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to 
insist  here  that  this  hope  is  Messianic,  or  looks  at  all  beyond  the 
Jewish  people.  It  can  and  must  be  claimed  that  it  is  a  marked  pecu- 
liarity of  Genesis,  and  transfuses  it  like  a  beam  of  light  from  first  to 
last. 

We  now  advance  to  a   new   stage  of  the   inquiry.     We  have 
shown,  in  four  particulars,  that  the  author  of  Genesis  had  a  distinct 
plan  before  him.     These  four  objects  of  his  are  not  of  equal  promi- 
nence, but  they  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  one  another  and  are 
28 


426  2 HE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

blended  together  in  an  obvious  unity.  If  he  had  other  objects  in 
view,  they  were  clearly  subsidiary  to  these,  and  made  to  contribute 
to  their  unfolding.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable  and  is,  in  fact,  so 
far  undisputed.  Genesis  exhibits,  superficially  at  least,  a  remark- 
able oneness  in  conception  and  design.  In  its  general  features  it 
bears  the  marks  of  the  same  constructive  mind.  Each  part  is  fitted 
to  its  place  in  the  general  plan  and  duly  contributes  to  its  develop- 
ment. What  is  the  bearing  of  this  fact  on  the  current  theory  ? 
Genesis,  in  its  present  form,  must  have  been  the  work  of  one  master 
mind.  Can  anything  be  known  respecting  the  sources  he  had  at  his 
command?  It  can  be  shown,  we  think,  with  reasonable  certainty, 
that  the  documents  known  as  J,  E  and  P,  as  such  did  not  form  the 
basis  of  his  work.  The  facts  hitherto  set  forth  in  this  paper, 
although  selected  at  random  for  their  own  sake  and  with  no  such 
secondary  end  immediately  in  view,  have  strongly  suggested 
this  inference  already.  The  theory  now  in  vogue  is  plainly  incom- 
patible with  such  a  unity  of  plan,  so  carried  out.  With  the  presup- 
posed redactor  or  compiler,  it  was  less  a  question  of  clearly  putting 
an  object  before  his  readers,  or  of  teaching  them  some  moral  lesson, 
than  of  conserving  and  displaying  his  material.  For  the  quasi- 
canonical  matter  he  felt  a  tender,  even  a  sacred  interest.  We  are 
told  that  his  frequent  faults  of  judgment  were  generally  due  to  a 
pardonable  bias  of  feeling  towards  his  sources.  The  evident  pur- 
pose of  the  author  of  Genesis,  on  the  other  hand,  shown  in  the  four 
particulars  named,  demonstrates  exactly  the  contrary  feeling.  He 
worked  as  a  master.  He  made  his  material  strictly  subserve  the 
ends  he  had  in  view.  The  matter  selected,  what  it  should  be, 
whether  genealogical  or  historical,  whether  little  or  much,  whether 
drawn  out  in  extreme  detail  or  put  in  the  form  of  bare  state- 
ment, was  selected,  shaped  and  manipulated  as  it  was,  because  the 
author  had  set  before  him  a  definite  literary  and  moral  goal  which 
he  never  lost  sight  of.  It  was  not  because  he  had  three  documents 
to  combine  into  a  pleasing  verisimilitude.  We  may  safely  challenge 
the  j  udgment  of  every  candid  investigator  whether  prima  facie  this 
is  not  the  case.  If  it  be  so,  it  is  a  fact  which  goes  very  far  towards 
settling  the  question  before  us  ;  it  proves  that  Genesis  is  not  a 
compilation  from  three  continuous  sources  of  the  nature  of  J,  E 
and  P. 

We  have  already  considered  how  extremely  improbable  it  is  that 
three  such  works,  so  alike  in  material  and  chronological  order,  existed 
at  the  periods  named.  The  difficulties  of  such  an  hypothesis  are 
greatly  enhanced  by  what  has  been  said  in  the  present  paper.  Each 
must  also  have  been  penetrated  by  the  same  purpose.  We  now  see, 
as  we  have  not  before,  what  must  have  been,  severally,  their  aim, 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  427 

•content,  spirit  and  peculiar  construction.  Like  Paley's  mysterious 
watch,  whose  separate  parts,  when  brought  together,  fitted  each  so 
nicely,  they  must  have  been  proportioned  and  adapted  to  one  another 
at  the  start,  or  their  compiler  was  a  greater  wonder-worker  than  Mos^s 
in  Egypt.  We  have  the  supposed  documents  delimited  for  us  in 
Genesis  and  can  easily  test  how  they  are  severally  related  to  this 
group  of  objects,  together  forming  the  manifest  purpose  of  its  au- 
thor. Take  first  the  principle  of  separation  and  exclusion  through 
which  the  choice  of  a  people  was  eftected.  Is  it  a  feature  of  each 
of  this  trio  of  alleged  early  writers  ?  To  a  certain  extent  it  is.  We 
have  pointed  out  how  the  genealogies  are  employed ;  and  have 
shown  that  in  their  relative  position,  and  even  in  their  inner  construc- 
tion, they  give  evidence  of  having  been  used  to  help  the  author  in 
this  aim  (with  iv.  16-19  cf.  v.  3-30  ;  and  chaps,  x,  xi).  This  is  P's 
testimony ;  but  only  in  part.  It  singles  out,  like  the  others,  Noah 
and  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  marries  the  last  two  among  their 
kindred.  It  is  the  document  of  the  covenants  and  of  circumcision. 
It  marks,  with  approval,  the  growing  estrangement  from  the  Canaan- 
ites,  little  observable  in  the  time  of  Abraham  (xxvi.  35 ;  chap, 
xxxiv) ;  and  allows  to  the  Israelites  a  possession  by  themselves  in 
the  land  of  Egypt  (xlvii.  11). 

With  reference  to  J  and  B  it  is  less  necessary  to  illustrate  this 
point,  since  it  would  be  generally  admitted.  Seth's  substitution, 
Shem's  exaltation,  Abraham's  call,  most  of  the  great  promises  of  a 
numerous  offspring,  the  three  stories  of  special  trial  at  royal  courts ; 
Jacob's  purification  at  Bethlehem ;  the  enucleation  of  the  family 
alike  in  Canaan  and  in  Egypt — these  are  here  ;  and  to  crown  all, 
Jacob's  blessing  upon  his  sons  with  his  prophetic  glance  directed  into 
the  distant  future  as  well  as  the  nearer  past.* 

Look,  next,  at  the  author's  purpose  respecting  the  land  of  Canaan. 
J  records  the  call  to  Abraham  to  migrate;  P  equally  shows 
whither ;  J  has  the  first  promise  of  the  land  as  an  inheritance  (xii. 
7) ;  P  soon  after  repeats,  and  emphasizes  it  by  a  covenant  (xvii.  9)  ; 
J  gives  information  that  centuries  must  pass  before  the  promise  is 
fulfilled  (xv.  16) ;  P  tells  how  Abraham,  in  pledge  of  unabated  con- 
fidence, bought  for  himself  and  family  a  burying  place  at  Machpelah 
(chap,  xxiii) ;  J  and  E  repeat  (xxvi.  3,  xli.  4)  the  promise  of  the 
land  to  Isaac  and  Jacob;  the  same  is  true  of  P  (xvii.  8,  xxxv.  11). 
And  in  the  successive  eliminations  of  possible  counter-claimants 
each  document,  either  by  historical  record  or  by  pertinent  state- 

*  Let  it  be  noted  here  once  for  all  that,  in  this  survey  of  the  contents  of  the 
several  documents,  no  distinction  is  made  between  what  is  known  as  J  and  J' ; 
nor  any  attention  given  to  mere  excerpts  of  a  document  assigned  by  critics  to  the 
redactor  in  the  obvious  interests  of  the  theory  advocated. 


428  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

ment,  shares :  in  the  dismission  of  Lot,  of  Ishmael,  of  Keturah's 
children,  and  of  Esau.  Again,  consider  the  common  trials  of  the 
patriarchs.  Is  P  colored  by  this  fact  ?  It  is  not  ignorant  of  the 
clog  that  Lot  proved  to  be  to  Abraham  ;  it  notes  Sarah's  barren- 
ness and  implies  that  of  Eebecca  (xxv.  21) ;  speaks  of  the  "  grief  of 
mind  "  that  Esau's  wives  were  to  his  parents  ;  records  Jacob's  pro- 
tracted absence  in  Paddan-aram  ;  the  perilous  complications  at 
Shechem  on  his  return,  and  the  dying  of  the  patriarch  in  Egypt 
with  his  face  turned  towards  Canaan.  With  respect  to  J  and  B,  it 
is  less  necessary  to  enlarge.  They  divide  between  them  the  record 
of  the  long  continued  discipline  of  Abraham  ;  of  Jacob's  experience 
at  Haran  ;  his  grave  differences  with  Laban  and  Esau ;  and  of  his 
sufferings  from  the  injustice  done  to  Joseph  and  the  share  he  had  in 
Egypt. 

So,  finally,  as  it  regards  the  predictive  matter  of  our  book,  the 
same  result  is  reached.  J  has  received  from  some  the  name  of  the 
"  prophetical  writer,"  to  so  large  an  extent  is  matter  of  this  sort 
referred  to  it.  It  is  not  wanting  in  E,  which  predicts  that  Abraham's 
seed  shall  be  as  the  stars  ;  and,  later,  that  in  them  shall  be  blessed 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  (xv..  5 ;  cf.  xxii.  16,  17).  Isaac's 
prophetic  blessing  upon  Jacob  is  assigned  by  our  analysts,  partly  to 
J,  partly  to  E  ;  so  the  narrative  of  the  divine  appearance  to  Jacob 
on  the  way  to  Haran,  with  its  accompanying  promise  (xxviii.  10- 
22  ;  cf.  XXXV.  1),  And  it  is  E  which  records  the  vision  accorded 
to  Jacob  on  his  way  to  Egypt  and  the  promise  that  his  bones  shall 
finally  rest  in  the  land  of  his  fathers  (xlvi.  4,  5). 

How  is  it  with  P — to  a  large  extent  a  mass  of  dry  statistics, 
names  and  dates  ?  Did  the  spirit  of  prophecy  touch  it  also  ?  It  is  P 
which,  looking  forth  to  the  end  of  time,  declares  that  there  shall  no 
more  be  a  flood  to  destroy  the  earth  (ix.  11)  ;  corresponding  to  J's 
words,  in  view  of  the  same  event  just  passed  :  "  While  the  earth  re- 
maineth,  seed  time  and  harvest  and  cold  and  heat,  and  summer  and 
winter,  and  day  and  night  shall  not  cease  "  (viii.  22),  We  have 
already  seen  with  what  consummate  skill  the  author  of  Genesis 
divided  P's  genealogy  of  Shem  in  the  midst  (chaps,  x,  xi)  in  order 
to  take  it  up  later  on,  and  so  to  concentrate  attention  on  Shem's 
famous  scion,  the  son  of  Terah. 

Notwithstanding  the  disconnected  and  fragmentary  nature  of  P's 
matter  elsewhere,  there  is  no  mistaking  its  drift.  Abraham  goes 
to  Canaan,  grows  there  to  be  rich  and  powerful,  becomes  a  party 
to  the  covenant  by  which  substantially  the  same  things  are  assured 
to  him  as  by  J  and  E  (xxvii.  7,  8) :  "  And  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  throughout 
their  generations  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  429 

and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee,  the  land  of  thy  sojournings,  all  the  land  of  Canaan 
for  an  everlasting  possession ;  and  I  will  be  their  God,"  When 
Abraham  is  laid  to  rest  in  the  significant  Machpelah,  it  is  P  which 
remembers  to  record  how  God  blessed  his  son  Isaac,  as  in  P  it  is 
noted  that  he  had  promised  to  do  (xxv.  11). 

It  is  P  which  puts  into  Isaac's  mouth  these  words  of  benediction 
for  Jacob :  "  God  Almighty  bless  thee  ....  that  thou  mayest  be  a 
company  of  peoples  "  (xxviii.  3) ;  and  into  God's  mouth  an  express 
prediction  of  like  content :  "  A  nation  and  a  company  of  nations 
shall  be  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thy  loins  ....  and 
the  land  which  I  gave  unto  Abraham  and  Isaac,  to  thee  will  I  give 
it  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee  will  I  give  the  land  "  (xxxv.  10-12). 
To  this  promise,  found  in  P,  Jacob,  likewise  in  P,  points  back,  in  a 
conference  with  Joseph  in  Egypt,  assigning  to  Joseph's  two  sons  a 
portion  in  this  land  which  was  to  be  an  "  everlasting  possession." 
Hence,  P  is  not  so  wanting  in  this  element  of  prediction  as  might  be 
thought.  It  has  enough  of  it  to  leave  no  just  room  for  doubt  that 
the  same  master  hand,  controlled  by  the  same  general  purpose, 
shaped  it  and  fitted  it  to  its  place. 

It  might  be  asked :  Is  not  this  reasoning  a  two-edged  sword  ? 
Does  it  not  tend  to  support,  rather  than  to  overthrow  the  theory 
that  there  are  combined  in  Genesis  three  originally  separate  works, 
having  similar  contents  ?  We  answer,  No,  far  from  it,  in  the  form 
presented.  Such  a  theory  might  have  plausibility  in  certain  con- 
tingencies and  to  a  certain  limited  degree.  Followed  out  to  a  logical 
conclusion  in  the  present  case,  it  is  a  boomerang  which  comes  back 
to  confound  its  projectors.  The  argument  from  similarity  of  contents 
here  proves  too  much  to  serve  the  theory.  If  it  have  the  value  of 
proof  at  all,  it  proves  that  J,  E  and  P  are  inseparable  parts  of  one 
work.  Where  was  there  ever  a  narrative  of  any  length  which  could 
not  be  separated  into  parts,  each  more  or  less  continuous  in  itself,  and, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  bearing  a  striking  resemblance  to  one 
another '/  That  is  in  no  sense  extraordinary.  The  proof  that  the 
divisions  are  constituent  parts  of  one  and  the  same  work  and  belong 
together  is  in  the  fact  that  when  found  together,  or  when  put 
together,  they  form  an  organic  whole ;  a  whole  that  is  obviously 
penetrated  and  dominated  by  certain  ideas,  which  may  appear 
and  should  indeed  appear,  to  some  degree,  in  the  parts  themselves, 
but  unorganized,  without  a  nice  inner  connection,  without  growth 
and  without  climax.  That  is  the  exact  state  of  the  case  here. 
We  have  no  mechanical  junction  of  disconnected  stories.  We  have 
a  continuous  evolution  from  primary  ideas. 

None  of  the  supposed  sources  presents  in  their  fullness  and  strength 


430  2'HE  PRE8BTTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

the  four  ruling  principles  named.  None  of  them  fails  to  represent^ 
in  some  form  and  degree,  every  one  of  them.  J  is  prophetical,  but 
so  are  E  and  P  in  a  degree,  and,  what  is  more  to  the  point,  along 
the  same  lines  and  looking  to  the  same  objects.  P  offers  powerful 
evidence  here  and  there  that  its  author  was  intent  on  showing  how 
Israel  became  a  people  and  inherited  a  land  ;  but  it  is  in  scraps,  un- 
related segments.  The  circle  is  complete  when  to  them  are  added 
the  statements  of  J  and  E.  On  the  other  hand,  it  might  be  made  out 
from  J  or  E,  and  far  better  from  both  together,  that  it  had  pleased 
God  to  train  His  servants  in  patience  and  heroic  trust.  But  the  lesson 
would  be  below  the  standard  clearly  aimed  at  by  the  author  of 
Genesis  without  the  matter  supplied  by  P.  Simple  walls  are  not 
meaningless  ;  they  have  not  the  significance  of  walls  converging  to 
the  arch.  That  is  what  these  supposed  sources  do  for  one  another. 
It  is  admitted  that  they  are  composed  of  the  same  material,  that  it 
is  shaped  to  a  like  pattern  ;  but  some  fail  to  see  that  apart,  they  are 
each  loosely,  if  at  all,  connected  and  are  feeble  in  suggestion. 
Together  they  come  to  their  own,  are  alive  with  meaning  through- 
out, and  make  up  the  palpable  unity  of  Genesis. 

Take,  for  example,  the  trial  of  Abraham  respecting  the  promised 
seed.  There  is  no  more  marked  feature  of  the  book,  and  each  of 
the  alleged  sources  contributes  its  part.  Take  J  alone  and  you  get 
the  idea,  but  without  some  important  side  lights  upon  it  touching 
Eliezer  and  Abraham's  doubts  (xv.  1-3).  Without  P  the  promise 
on  which  Abraham's  hopes,  as  well  as  his  own  matchless  faith  are 
based,  fail  of  their  culminating  point,  and  the  related  series  of 
events  lacks  their  proper  perspective.  Again,  without  P  and  J,  E 
would  be  unintelligible ;  having  a  tolerable  beginning,  but  without 
middle  or  end.  We  find  Isaac,  as  we  do  Ishmael,  in  it,  and  the 
patriarch's  trial  at  Jehovah-jireh.  That  is  all.  The  last  is  an  im- 
portant contribution  as  such  to  the  scheme  of  Genesis.  Isolated  in 
E,  it  is  incomprehensible — would  cause,  in  fact,  the  gravest  per- 
plexity. 

This  illustrates  sufficiently  well  the  point  we  have  in  view.  To 
separate  Genesis  into  three  parts  by  the  lines  of  cleavage  laid  down 
in  the  current  analysis  would  be  to  rob  the  book  of  its  admitted 
meaning.  To  admit  such  meaning,  though  only  in  part,  and  suppose 
it  the  product  of  little  more  than  an  external  adjustment  of  originally 
dissevered  independent  works,  mediated  by  how  deft  soever  a  hand, 
is  to  predicate  an  ethical  and  a  literary  impossibility, — if  the  hand 
were  unskilled  and  clumsy,  a  gross  absurdity.  As  Prof.  Driver  * 
says  of  the  "  traditional  view,"  the  price  at  which  such  a  theory 
must  be  maintained  is  too  high. 

*  Introd.,  p.  X. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  431 

The  argument  for  the  unity  of  Genesis  derived  from  the  quality 
of  the  Hebrew  employed  has  been  already  given  on  both  its  nega- 
tive and  positive  sides  in  the  previous  chapter.  It  is  generally  ad- 
mitted that  Genesis  represents,  to  a  considerable  extent,  the  oldest 
form  of  the  language.  But  it  is  said  that  in  P,  mingled  with  signs 
of  antiquity,  are  elements  characteristic  of  its  latest  form.  This  we 
beg  leave  to  question  on  the  ground  of  facts  elsewhere  presented ; 
and  we  call  for  proof.  What  has  been  hitherto  adduced  as  proof  is 
plainly  inadequate,  finding  a  complete  parallel,  to  say  no  more,  in  J 
and  E.  The  conclusion,  accordingly,  to  which  we  are  necessarily 
driven  by  the  data  in  hand  is  this :  If  from  the  general  criteria  of 
language  and  style  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  Genesis  did  not 
originate  in  the  time  of  the  early  kings  (1000-800  B.C.),  on  the 
same  ground  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  it  might  have  arisen  in 
the  time  of  Moses. 

One  other  ground  for  the  unity  and  continuity  of  Genesis  remains 
to  be  considered.  It  is  the  references  of  its  several  parts  to  one 
another.  They  are  far  more  numerous  than  is  generally  supposed, 
and  their  bearing  is  unmistakable.  The  problem  is  complicated 
somewhat  by  differences  of  opinion  among  critics  as  to  the  relative 
order  of  the  sources  and  the  time  of  their  union.  For  convenience 
we  shall  have  in  mind  the  hypothesis  of  the  great  majority  who 
hold  that  J  and  E  after  circulating  independently  were  first  united ; 
then,  long  after — not  less  than  three  centuries — were  supplemented 
and  completed  from  P.  As  might  be  expected,  the  redactor  or 
compiler  has  here  an  important  role.  At  each  step  his  part  is  to  be 
carefully  scrutinized  lest  he  exceed  his  prerogative  or  transgress  the 
rules  of  logic,  since,  in  the  end,  whoever  else  he  may  be,  he  is  the 
responsible  agent  of  the  theory  which  created  him. 

There  are  found  in  Genesis,  as  we  now  have  it,  four  classes  of 
cross  references :  of  P  to  P  ;  of  P  to  J  or  E ;  of  J  or  E  to  P ;  and 
of  J  and  E  to  one  another.  For  present  purposes  the  references  of 
P  to  J  or  E,  or  vice  versd^  will  be  sufficient.  Actual  references  or  a 
dependence  of  this  sort  are  obviously  out  of  harmony  with  the 
theory,  in  fact  disprove  it.  If  the  matter  of  P  refers  to  or  pre- 
supposes that  of  J  or  E,  it  must  have  been  written  with  reference  to 
it.  The  same  is  true  of  J  or  E  in  relation  to  P.  The  only  alter- 
native is  to  suppose,  that  in  these  particulars  the  original  form  of 
all  sources  was  virtually  alike;  that  is  to  say,  if  the  cases  are  nu- 
merous, instead  of  there  being  three  distinct  sources  at  the  basis  of 
Genesis,  there  was  one  Genesis  from  which  the  alleged  sources 
were  derived.  Another  possibility  should  not  be  overlooked.  The 
way  may  be  prepared  in  one  part  of  Genesis  for  what  appears  later, 
without  prejudice  to  the  theory  that  the  former  may  be  an  original 


432  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

source  on  which  the  latter  has  freely  built,  thd!t  is,  some  form  of  a 
supplementary  theory  which  is  not  yet  altogether  antiquated. 

First,  are  there  indications  of  the  dependence  of  J  or  E  on 
P?  Throughout  chaps,  ii  and  iii  (J)  the  word  Elohim  has  gen- 
erally been  put  in  a  way  almost  singular  in  the  Bible,  alongside 
of  Jehovah,  in  obvious  reference  to  chap,  i  (P).  It  is  usually 
ascribed  to  the  redactor.  Was  he  then  so  theologically  inclined  ? 
It  must  be  conceded  that  he  took  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  emend  his 
(three-hundred-year  old)  source,  since  he  was  obliged  to  insert  the 
word  not  less  than  a  score  of  times.*  Again,  "  heaven  and 
earth,"  as  a  conception,  in  v.  29,  is  a  remarkable  interjection 
of  a  scrap  of  matter  from  J  in  the  midst  of  P.  It  refers  to  the  birth 
of  Noah,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  context.  There  are  but  two 
alternatives :  either  the  matter  is  from  J,  and  here  depends  on  P's 
statement  which  immediately  precedes,  or  it  is  P's  matter,  and  refers 
back  to  J  (iii.  17).  Either  supposition  is  out  of  harmony  with  the 
theory. 

In  vi.  7,  vii.  23,  it  is  admitted  by  all,  that  there  is  found  in  J 
a  characteristic  expression  consisting  of  a  dozen  v/ords  in  the 
English,  of  P  (i.  26) :  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  and  let 
him  have  dominion."  By  a  clear  evasion  of  strict  logical  conse- 
quences, however,  it  is  charged  to  the  redactor.  A  credible  reason 
for  these  two  lapses  of  the  redactor,  who  was  so  careful  in  chaps. 
ii  and  iii  to  use  words  by  line  and  plummet,  has  never  been 
given.  In  vii.  1  (J),  Noah  is  told  to  come  into  "  the  ark,"  though 
all  that  is  previously  said  about  "  the  ark  "  is  said  in  P  (vi.  13-16). 
In  the  same  verse  Jehovah  is  represented  as  saying  to  the  patri- 
arch :  "  Thee  have  I  seen  righteous  before  me  in  this  genera- 
tion," in  obvious  dependence  on  vi.  9  (P),  as  the  peculiar  coloring 
of  the  language  shows  and  as  is  admitted  by  Dillmann.f  In  vii.  3, 
9,  the  language  again,  it  is  universally  conceded,  shows  that  J  is  in 
the  livery  of  P.  But  it  is  claimed,  redactor  fecit.  A  possible  reason 
why  critics  might  claim  it,  we  have ;  any  good  reason  why  the  re- 
dactor should  do  it,  we  have  not. 

In  vii.  12  (J),  the  statement  that  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth 
forty  days  is  directly  dependent  on  the  verse  just  before,  vii.  11  (P), 
which  speaks  of  the  opening  of  the  windows  of  heaven;  and  in  viii. 
2''  (J),  there  is  a  like  dependence  on  viii.  1^  (P).  The  declaration 
in  viii.  20  (J),  that  Noati  built  an  altar,  presupposes  his  disembarka- 
tion recorded  only  by  P  in  a  previous  section  (viii.  4).  In  ix.  22 
(J),  there  is  a  clear  anticipation  of  a  fact  stated  in  x.  6  (P).     It  is 

*In  ii.  18,   "living  creature"  (of.  i.  21,  etc.),  claimed  by  critics  as  an  expres- 
sion peculiar  to  P,  might  fairly  be  cited  as  referring  to  i.  31,  etc.  (P). 
t  Die  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  p.  656. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  433 

laid  to  the  charge  of  the  redactor,  but  in  palpable  avoidance  of  the 
logic  of  facts  (cf.  ix.  18,  19).     In  x.  15  (J),  a  genealogical  state- 
ment is  made  that  can  be  understood  only  by  referring  back  to  P 
(x.  6).     It  is   held  to  be  another  of  the   redactor's   adjustments 
Would  he  have  cut  up  J,  the  older  family  register,  to  piece  out  P's, 
and   make  a  mess  of  both  ?     He  was  more  economical  in  chaps 
iv  and  v,  where,   wittingly  or   not,  he   is  supposed  to  have  pre 
served  one  and  the  same  register  in  two  forms.     In  x.  24  the  re 
dactor  is  made  to  supplement  P's  register  by  a  verse  of  his  own 
In  doing  so  he  has  employed  one  of  the  most  characteristic  ex 
pressions  of  J  ("begat"  in  the  Hebrew).     Working  in  the  age  and 
spirit  of  P,  he  should  have  been  more  shrewd.     If,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  was  intended  as  an  introductory  link  to  J's  list  which  fol- 
lows, it  is  equally  clumsy  in  showing  a  dependence   in  other  re- 
spects on  P. 

Again,  in  xi.  1-9  (J),  the  account  of  the  confusion  of  tongues  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  explain  x.  5,  20,  31,  32  (P),  which  implies 
that  the  nations  already  had  different  tongues.  Chap.  xii.  4  (J), 
which  speaks  of  Lot's  going  to  Canaan  with  Abraham,  is  mystify- 
ing without  xi.  27,  31  (P),  which  informs  us  who  Lot  is.  In  xii. 
6  it  is  remarked  that  Abraham  passed  through  the  land.  We  only 
know  what  land  it  is  from  the  preceding  verse,  contributed  by  P. 
In  xviii.  10,  14  (J),  Jehovah  assures  Abraham  that  he  will  surely 
fulfill  his  promise  when  the  season  comes  round  "  at  the  set  time." 
The  time  had  just  been  marked  in  chap.  xvii.  17  (P),  as  Sarah's 
ninetieth  year  (cf.  xii.  4,  xxi.  5).  In  xxi.  2  it  is  said  that  Sarah 
"  bare  Abraham  a  son  in  his  old  age,"  an  obvious  reference  to  P's 
statements  concerning  the  patriarch's  age,  for  they  occur  nowhere 
else  in  J.  In  xxi.  13  (E),  we  read :  "  And  also  of  the  son  of  the 
bondwoman  will  I  make  a  nation,  because  he  is  thy  seed."  Its 
form  suggests  at  once  xvii.  20,  where  the  promise  concerning  Ish- 
mael  has  fuller  expression  (P).  In  xxiv.  6,  7  (J),  the  death  of  Sarah 
is  directly  implied.  It  had  been  previously  recorded  in  xxiii.  1,  2 
(P),  and  there  alone.  To  say  that  the  redactor  inserted  the  refer- 
ence in  J  is  simply  a  sign  of  stress  of  weather,  and  does  not  change 
the  matter  an  atom.  In  xxv.  18  we  have  another  instance  of  the 
piecing  of  P  with  a  scrap  from  J,  and  the  scrap  would  be  mean- 
ingless anywhere  else.  What  such  a  fact  means,  a  moment's  re- 
flection will  suggest.  A  statement  made  in  xxix.  30  (E),  is  logi- 
cally dependent  on  what  is  said  in  the  preceding  verse  (P),  and 
the  idea  would  be  intolerable  without  it  (cf.,  also,  xxix.  23,  24). 
We  claim  further  that  what  is  said  of  Esau's  movements  in  con- 
nection with  Seir  (xxxii.  3,  xxxiii.  16,  J),  is  only  intelligible  when 
taken  together  with  what  P  supplies  in  various  passages  (xxxv. 


434  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

29,  XXX vi.  6-8;  cf.  xliv.  30,  31).*  Chap,  xxxiv.  shows  through- 
out the  mutual  dependence  of  J  and  P. 

The  connection  is  as  close  in  some  cases  as  subject  and  predicate 
(vers.  1, 2) ;  or  the  corresponding  parts  of  a  compound  sentence  (ver. 
3).  A  matter  proposed  in  P,  in  one  case,  is  carried  out  in  J  (with 
14-17  cf.  19).  In  ver.  25  we  read  :  "  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  third 
day,  when  thej  were  sore,  that  (so  far  P)  two  of  (J)  the  sons  of  Jacob 
(P),  Simeon  and  Levi,  Dinah's  brethren  (J),  took  each  man  his 
sword,  and  came  upon  the  city  unawares,  and  slew  all  the  males  " 
(P).  We  are  asked  to  believe  that  a  redactor  working  in  the  days 
of  P  used  his  scissors  thus  mercilessly  on  his  sources,  and  for  what 
purpose  here  ?  To  supplement  J  in  the  interests  of  P  ?  No  ;  but  to 
correct  P  and  make  it  harmonize  with  J — a  proceeding  in  polar  con- 
trast with  his  assumed  attitude  in  general.  And  he  did  this  when, 
if  he  had  left  P's  representation  unmodified,  he  would  have  had  a 
more  natural  and  easily  accepted  statement :  namely,  that  all  the 
brethren  were  concerned  in  the  affair,  instead  of  two  only. 

What  now  do  these  examples  show  ?  They  show,  as  far  as  they 
go,  and  their  scope  is  not  inconsiderable,  that  J  and  E  presuppose 
P,  on  which  they  so  clearly  depend.  To  ascribe  the  phenomena 
presented  to  the  simple  manipulation  of  the  sources  is  manifestly 
out  of  the  question.  To  say  that  the  matter  was  originally  alike 
in  these  particulars,  or  that  the  redactor  has  changed  it  to  make  it 
conform  where  it  was  unlike,  are  pure  conjectures  to  which  the 
advocates  of  the  theory  are  not  entitled,  especially  to  any  such  ex- 
tent. They  have  not,  moreover,  the  merit  of  plausibility.  In  fact, 
they  are  suicidal.  We  have  one  original  Genesis,  and  these  three 
are  extracts,  not  sources. 

Changing  now  the  point  of  view,  let  us  note  any  instances  where 
P  refers  to  or  presupposes  J  or  E.  As  in  the  last  case,  an  exhaust- 
ive induction  is  not  attempted.  In  v.  1  we  read :  "  The  book  of 
the  generations  of  Adam."  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this 
proper  name,  gradually  introduced  from  chap.  iii.  17  (cf.  iv.  25), 
comes  through  J,  where  we  find  already  a  sense  for  the  importance 
of  names  (cf.  ii.  19,  23).  In  the  following  verse  we  read :  "  Male 
and  female  created  he  them  and  blessed  them,  and  called  their 
name  Adam."  This  appears  to  refer  to  the  work  of  creation  as 
recorded  in  J  (ii.  7),  and  to  be  a  play  upon  the  word  Adam,  that  is, 
in  its  root-meaning,  earth,  the  material  from  which  they  are  there 
said  to  have  been  made  ("dust  from  the  ground").  The  fact  that 
Adam  and  his  descendants  are  spoken  of  as  dying  (v.  5),  looks  back  to 
ii.  17(J),  where  death  is  threatened  as  the  consequence  of  disobedience. 

*  If  there  were  a  discrepancy— which  there  is  not — it  is  in  P  when  compared 
with  itself. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  435 

The  expression  in  v.  24,  "  Enoch  walked  with  God,"  like  a  similar 
one  at  vi.  9,  referring  to  Noah,  implies  the  corruption  of  the  earth  de- 
scribed only  in  J.  In  vi.  11,  the  statement  that  the  earth  was  cor- 
rupt, like  the  last  passages,  but  more  peremptorily,  requires  the  ac- 
count of  the  introduction  of  sin  contained  in  J,  Chap,  i  had  con- 
cluded with  the  words :  "  And  God  saw  everything  that  he  had 
made,  and  behold  it  was  very  good." 

In  vi.  12  we  are  told  that  all "  flesh  "  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the 
earth.  The  peculiar  designation  of  the  fallen  race  as  "  flesh,"  is  derived 
from  vi.  3  (J).  In  vii.  6  (P),  the  immediate  announcement  of  the  flood 
in  J  (vers.  1-5)  is  plainly  presupposed.  In  vii.  17  (P),  the  flood  is 
said  to  have  been  "  forty  days  "  on  the  earth,  looking  back  to  vii.  12 
(J).  It  is  laid  to  the  redactor ;  but  at  the  expense  either  of  his 
good  sense  or  his  honesty.  In  ix.  3  (P),  where  flesh  is  allowed  to 
man  as  food,  there  is  doubtless  a  reference  to  the  previous  restric- 
tion to  a  vegetable  diet,  and  most  likely,  from  the  phrasing  of  J's 
form  of  it  (Hi.  18 ;  cf.  ii.  16,  J  ;  i.  29,  P).  In  ix.  5  (P),  "  and  surely 
your  blood  will  I  require,"  etc.,  seems  to  allude  to  the  account  of 
Abel's  murder  (J),  especially  to  the  words :  "  The  blood  of  thy 
brother  crieth  unto  me  from  the  ground."  In  xi.  31  (P),  Sarah  is 
spoken  of  as  Abraham's  wife.  The  fact  of  the  marriage  is  noted 
two  verses  before  in  J.  In  xii.  4  Abraham's  age  is  given  when  he 
started  from  Haran.  The  fact  and  the  occasion  of  his  going  to 
Haran  are  found  only  in  J,  just  before  (xii.  1-4).  In  xiii.  6,  the 
circumstance  is  mentioned  that  the  substance  of  Abraham  and  Lot 
is  too  great  to  permit  them  to  dwell  together.  How  it  comes  to  be 
so  is  described  in  J  in  the  preceding  context  (xii.  16,  xiii.  1-5).  The 
same  relation  of  the  documents  is  true  as  it  regards  their  recorded 
separation  (xiii.  11,  12;  cf.  xiii.  7-11). 

In  xvi.  3,  "  Hagar  the  Egyptian  "  is  introduced  into  the  narrative 
of  P.  How  Abraham  came  to  have  an  Egyptian  maid  is  told  only 
and  told  very  consistently  in  J  (xii,  16,  xvi.  1).  In  xvii.  7,  God 
speaks  of  establishing  His  covenant  with  Abraham.  That  He  had 
made  one  appears  only  from  J  and  E,  in  previous  chapters.  In 
xix.  29  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  is  alluded  to  as 
having  taken  place.  The  fact  is  described  by  J  at  length  in  the 
preceding  context.  In  this  same  brief  allusion  to  the  event  by  P, 
Lot  is  said  to  have  been  delivered  on  Abraham's  account,  evi- 
dently implying  Abraham's  intercession  recorded  in  J  (xviii.  23-32). 
In  xxxii.  2  (P),  Abraham  is  noticeably  spoken  of  as  having  come 
to  mourn  for  Sarah.  We  are  informed  in  E  that  he  was  in 
Beersheba  at  the  time  (xxii.  19),  while  Sarah  had  died  at  Hebron. 

In  XXV.  20  (P),  the  reference  to  Isaac's  marriage  looks  back  to  the 
record  of  it  in  xxiv.  67  (J) ;  that  to  Rebecca's  relatives,  including 


436  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW^ 

Bethuel,  "  the  Syrian  of  Paddan-aram,"  to  J  io  xxii.  23,  xxiv.  29. 
In  XXV.  8  (P),  Abraham  is  said  to  have  died  in  a  "  good  old  age," 
an  expression  taken  from  the  promise  that  he  should  do  so,  re- 
corded in  XV.  15,  which  is  properly  matter  of  J,  although  to  avoid 
a  collision  assigned  by  critics  to  the  redactor.  In  xxv.  11  (P),  it  is 
said  that  Isaac  dwelt  at  Beer-lahai-roi,  a  statement  based  on  a  pre- 
vious one  (of  P)  that  he  had  come  up  from  there  to  meet  and 
marry  Eebecca  (xxiv.  62  ;  cf.  xvi.  14).  In  xxviii.  1,  Isaac's  charge 
to  Jacob  is  founded  on  the  foregoing  narrative  of  J  and  E;  so 
xxviii.  2  on  xxiv.  9,  xxviii.  7  on  xxvii.  42,  although  for  no  apparent 
reason  except  to  avoid  danger  to  the  theory  in  the  last  case  the  re- 
dactor has  been  supposed  to  have  made  an  insertion  of  two  words 
in  P's  text.  A  part  of  ver.  18,  chap,  xxxi  (P),  is  afloat,  like  a 
piece  of  cordage  in  the  sea,  unless  it  be  connected  with  the  narra- 
tive of  J  and  E  found  immediately  before.  That  it  floats  in  a  cer- 
tain common  direction  does  not  prove  it  any  the  less  a  fragment. 
Who  is  the  Dinah  of  whom  the  story  is  told  by  both  P  and  J  in 
chap,  xxxiv?  We  are  informed  only  in  J  (xxx.  21).  How  do  we 
know  that  Hamor  is  the  father  of  Shechem  (xxxiv.  4,  P)  ?  E  tells 
us  a  few  verses  earlier  (xxxiii.  19).  Critics  think  he  ought  not  to 
have  done  so,  but  the  "  ought "  has  force  from  their  point  of  view 
only.  In  xxxv,  9,  God  is  said  to  have  appeared  unto  Jacob  "  again  " 
when  he  came  from  Paddan-aram.  It  can  only  relate  to  his  first 
appearance  to  him  when  he  went  thither,  recorded  in  E  (xxviii. 
11,  12).  Critics  would  refer  the  one  word  again  to  the  redactor. 
It  is  quite  too  small  a  buffer  to  stand  the  concussion  of  intervening 
history.  In  xxxv.  10  (P),  where  the  change  of  Jacob's  name  from 
Jacob  to  Israel  is  recorded  for  the  second  time,  the  first  account  of 
it  (xxxii.  25,  J)  is  in  view  where  alone  its  raison  cTeire  appears.  In 
xxxv.  26  (P),  Zilpah  is  referred  to  as  Leah's  handmaid.  It  looks 
back  to  xxx.  9  (J)  where  the  fact  is  stated  in  its  original  and  fuller 
form.  In  xli.  46  (P),  Joseph  is  introduced  as  having  stood  before 
Pharaoh.  The  circumstance  is  described  in  the  context  (J  and  E) 
just  preceding.  Without  this  connection,  it  is  another  piece  of 
floating  wreckage.  In  xlvi.  6,  7,  xlvii.  5,  6,  7-11,  there  are  like 
scraps  from  P  relating  to  Joseph's  going  down  to  Egypt,  which  are 
similarly  incomplete  when  considered  apart.  At  this  point,  more- 
over, a  long  list  of  Jacob's  descendants  is  given  as  a  resume  of  scat- 
tered information  elsewhere.  By  a  fundamental  principle  of  the 
analysis  it  should  be  assigned  to  P.  It  is  introduced  by  matter 
which  is  so  assigned.  It  has  some  of  P's  alleged  characteristic  ex- 
pressions (xlvi.  15).  But  it  refers  back  to  events  peculiar  to  J  and 
E  (ver.  12,  etc.).  The  criticism,  accordingly,  is  between  two  fires. 
As  is  usual  in  such  cases,  it  gives  way  in  favor  of  the  redactor  to 
the  extent  of  about  twenty  verses. 


TEE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  437 

In  xlvii,  27  (P)  the  expression  "  land  of  Goshen  "  is  found,  said  to 
be  at  home  only  in  J,  P's  being  "land  of  Egypt,"  or  "land  of 
Rameses."  To  parry  the  blow,  to  the  theory  and  save  an  alleged 
duplicate,  the  redactor  is  supposed  to  have  inserted  the  two  mis- 
leading words,  the  very  thing  he  was  there  not  to  do  (cf.  xlvii.  11). 
If  critics  can  give  as  forcible  and  necessary  a  reason  for  his  doing 
it  as  they  themselves  have  for  holding  that  he  did  it,  the  hypothesis 
might  be  regarded  as  credible.  In  xlviii.  7,  in  P's  context,  and  with 
his  phraseology,  Rachel's  death  is  incidentally  noted.  A  circum- 
stantial description  of  the  event  appeared  in  JE  long  before  (xxxv. 
16-22).  Here  again  resort  is  taken  to  the  redactor,  but  against  the 
judgment  of  some  of  the  ablest  of  the  critics  themselves.  It  was 
not  unnatural  for  Jacob  in  speaking  with  Joseph  respecting  his 
sons  that  he  should  refer  to  the  decease  of  Joseph's  own  mother. 
A  large  part  of  chap,  xlix  is  devoted  to  Jacob's  final  blessing  upon 
his  sons '(vers.  1-27).  To  it  in  detail  ver.  28  (P)  makes  clear  refer- 
ence in  these  words :  "  And  this  it  is  that  their  father  spoke  unto 
them  and  blessed  them,  every  one  according  to  his  blessing,  he 
blessed  them."  It  is  a  fitting  conclusion  to  this  long  list  of  in- 
stances in  which  P  takes  account  of  the  matter  of  its  supposed 
companion  documents. 

Again  we  ask,  What  is  to  be  done  with  these  facts  ?  Some  of 
them  might  be  disputed.  We  do  not  claim  absolute  certainty  in 
every  case ;  only  in  the  majority  of  cases.  Whatever  may  be  said 
of  some  of  the  instances  cited  cannot  affect  the  validity  of  the  rest. 
The  argument  is  not  like  a  chain  whose  strength  is  equal  only  to 
that  of  its  weakest  link.  The  point  to  be  considered  is :  Are  not 
these  instances  of  cross  reference  just  what  might  have  been  ex- 
pected were  Genesis  as  a  literary  work  essentially  a  unit  ?  Are 
they  not  fully  as  numerous  in  this  case  as  they  would  be  in  that  ? 
And  are  they  not  of  the  same  general  character  ?  It  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  the  references  of  P  to  P  and  of  J  to  E  and  vice  versa 
have  not  been  considered,  nor  many  others  not  so  directly  bearing 
on  the  theory  before  us.  They  would  add  immensely  to  the  list. 
On  the  other  hand,  were  Genesis  constructed  as  claimed  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  current  analysis,  would  not,  must  not,  the  fundamen- 
tal differences  cropping  out  be  far  greater,  and  these  cross  references 
much  fewer  and  of  a  different  character  ?  So  it  seems  to  us.  We 
would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  expect  indications  very  marked  and 
very  clear  of  a  literary  make-up  so  pronounced. 

We  are  pointed,  it  is  true,  to  the  evidence  of  language  and  of 
duplicate  accounts.  These  we  have  considered  elsewhere*  and  do 
not  find   sufficiently  strong   to   overcome  the   acknowledged   and 

*  See  article  in  The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review  for  April,  1895. 


438  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

demonstrable  unity  of  the  book.  Were  there  no  other  testimony 
that  the  repetitions  pointed  out  in  Genesis  are  not  marks  of  diverse 
documentary  sources,  the  fact  that  many  of  the  same  sort  remain 
in  each  of  the  supposed  documents,  after  the  analysis  has  been  re- 
duced to  its  lowest  terms,  would  be  fully  adequate  to  disprove  the 
theory  at  this  its  strongest  .point  (cf.  v.  32,  vi.  10,  x.  1,  vi.  11,  12, 
vii.  14-16,  18-20  triplicate,  ix.  9-11,  12-17,  xii.  5,  xvii.  8,  10). 
These  are  a  few  examples,  taken  somewhat  at  random,  from  the 
one  document  P,  the  one  most  scrupulously  separated  from  the 
others.  It  is  apparent  that  they  are  not  signs  of  different  docu- 
ments, but  mere  reiterations  for  the  purpose  of  emphasis  or  of 
clearness. 

The  methods  adopted  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  argument  for 
the  unity  of  Genesis  from  the  many  mutual  references  of  the 
alleged  sources  have  already  been  glanced  at.  Sometimes  it  is 
claimed  that  they  are  due  to  the  mere  juxtaposition  or  the  skillful 
adjustment  of  somewhat  similar  original  material.  For  this  suppo- 
sition the  references  are  clearly  too  numerous  and  the  dependence  too 
direct,  since  the  date  of  their  origin  respectively  cannot  be  forgotten. 
More  often  the  dependence  is  charged  to  alterations  introduced  by 
the  redactor  in  his  material.  This  might  be  admitted  oftener  in  the 
score  or  so  of  cases  alleged,  if  a  really  probable  reason  were  given 
for  the  most  of  such  changes  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  redactor. 
The  necessity  for  them  from  the  critic's  point  of  view  is  perspicuous 
enough.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  every  such  introduction  of  the 
redactor,  as  a  mere  puppet  of  the  theory,  is  itself  a  strong,  if  indi- 
rect argument  against  the  theory.  At  best  it  must  be  regarded  as 
irregular,  an  exception  to  what  is  claimed.  Beyond  a  certain  nar- 
row limit  exceptions  of  this  sort  become  an  unbearable  burden 
upon  a  theory,  and  that  limit  is  here  left  far  behind.  A  bare  sur- 
vey of  the  editorial  matter  of  the  Genesis  of  the  analysis,  on  what- 
ever side  considered,  can  only  awaken  the  gravest  suspicion  towards 
the  theory  it  is  brought  to  support. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  this  evidence  from  cross  refer- 
ences among  the  alleged  documents  in  Genesis  does  not  stand  by  it- 
self. It  comes  to  confirm  a  view  still  generally  accepted  and 
hitherto  universally  held.  It  comes  to  the  support  of  other  reasons 
for  the  unity  of  Genesis  which  would  be  quite  conclusive  were  they 
offered  in  favor  of  another  book.  The  four  great  lines  of  thought 
which  we  have  discovered  running  through  it  are  thus  shown  anew 
not  to  be  factitious  but  real,  organically  connected  not  only  among 
themselves,  but  with  a  multitude  of  other  subordinate  lines  which 
contribute  to  their  development.  That  there  are,  to  some  extent, 
original  fragmentary  documentary  sources  at  the  basis  of  the  pres- 


THE  ORIOIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  439 

ent  Genesis  we  are  convinced,  and  shall  attempt  hereafter  to  show. 
It  will  be  found  to  be  in  no  consistent  sense  out  of  harmony  with 
the  positions  already  taken.  That  this  original  material  lies  there, 
however,  still  like  massive  blocks  of  sandstone  alternating  with 
granite  and  gneiss ;  that  these  blocks  yet  appear  in  the  common 
structure,  only  covered  here  and  there  with  bits  of  stucco  and  an 
occasional  interchange  of  the  material  to  make  a  verisimilitude,  a 
semblance  of  uniformity — is  more  than  disproved  by  the  facts  pre- 
sented. Genesis  represents  not  so  much  compilation  as  strenuous 
elimination  and  selection.  It  is  characterized,^  not  by  bare  uni- 
formity, or  a  unity  that  is  outward  and  in  a  few  points.  It  has  the 
unity  of  the  landscape.  The  earth,  the  tree,  the  cloud  are  there, 
but  each  existing  for  the  other,  and  by  a  subtile  inner  concord 
working  together  under  the  guidance  of  one  controlling  mind  for 
common  ends. 

Edwin  Cone  Bissell. 

McCoRMiCK  Theological  Seminary,  Chicago. 


III. 

THE  AUTHENTICITY  AND  GENUINENESS 
OF  DANIEL. 

AMONG  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  of  Daniel  stands 
in  the  forefront  as  a  witness  for  Jesus  Christ.  Through  all 
the  centuries  it  has  borne  powerful  testimony  for  the  divine  origin 
and  claim  of  Christianity.  It  contains  the  supernatural  element  in 
a  high  degree.  Its  miracles  and  prophecies  are  of  the  most  pro- 
nounced description  and  demand  the  direct  agency  of  God  for  their 
production.  These  marked  features  of  the  book  have  incurred  for 
it  the  displeasure  of  rationalistic  critics,  who  have  massed  all  the 
resources  of  the  critical  method  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  its 
authenticity  and  historical  credibility,  while  evangelical  scholars 
have  been  no  less  earnest  in  their  defense.  The  history  of  the  con- 
test is  an  interesting  one. 

For  more  than  two  thousand  years  the  Church  of  God  has  held 
that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  written  at  Babylon  during  the  exile  and 
had  Daniel  for  its  author ;  and  that  its  historic  statements  are  true 
and  its  miracles  and  prophecies  genuine.  The  first  to  dispute  this 
position  was  Porphyry,  a  heathen  philosopher  of  the  New  Platonic 
School,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century  of  our  era.  He 
maintained  that  the  book  was  a  forgery,  its  miracles  impossible, 
and  its  prophecies  history  written  after  the  event.  He  frankly 
admitted  that  history  had  verified  some  of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel, 
"  and  then  adroitly  turned  his  admission  into  a  weapon  of  attack, 
arguing  that  a  record  so  exact  could  be  made  only  after  the  events : 
Daniel  played  the  part  of  an  historian  in  the  mask  of  a  prophet." 
The  matter  rested  for  many  centuries  until  the  attack  was  resumed 
by  the  Dutch  Jew  Spinoza,  the  French  infidel  Voltaire,  the  German 
rationalist  Berthhold,  and  the  English  deist  Anthony  Collins,  the 
actual  precursors  of  the  destructive  critics  of  to-day,  who  repro- 
duce the  same  arguments.  In  their  view,  the  book  does  not  come 
from  Daniel  and  his  times,  but  from  the  Maccabean  age,  when  the 
Jews  were  persecuted  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  They  hold  that 
the  predictive  elements  of  the  book,  so  far  as  there  is  any  truth  in 
them  at  all,  are  history  in  the  form  of  prediction  written  after  the 


THE  ANTI8TES  OF  ZURICH.  613 

to  the  left  or  rationalistic  wing.  These  were  the  theologians  who 
led  Zurich  back  again  to  rationalism.  Over  against  the  rationalistic 
teachings  of  the  university  of  Zurich,  the  evangelicals  called  a  pro- 
fessor extraordinary  to  the  university  and  supported  him  privately. 
They  also  founded,  through  the  liberality  of  Matilda  Escher,  the  St. 
Anna  Chapel,  which  has  become  the  centre  of  all  evangelical  influ- 
ences in  the  canton.  In  1866,  Antistes  Brunner  died  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  the  present  antistes,  Diethelra  George  Finsler,  a  very  able 
man,  who  has  written  a  number  of  very  valuable  works  such  as  a 
History  of  the  Theological  Development  of  German  Sivitzerland. 
He  represents  the  mediating  school  of  theology  as  held  by  the  late 
Prof.  Hagenbach  of  Basle,  but  like  Hagenbach  and  the  mediates  in 
general  he  is  always  anxious  to  give  the  same  rights  to  each  party 
in  the  Church.  It  is  possible  that  he  may  be  the  last  of  the  long 
series  of  antistes,  as  the  parliament  is  now  occupied  with  a  new 
organization  of  the  Church,  which  would  eliminate  that  dignity. 

We  have  thus  traced  the  history  of  the  antistes  of  Zurich  through 
three  centuries,  and  from  the  highest  Calvinistic  orthodoxy  down  to  . 
the  completest  rationalism.  Zurich  and  its  university  to-day  are  the 
most  rationalistic  in  German  Switzerland,  although  we  have  learned 
with  pleasure  that  within  the  last  five  years  somewhat  of  a  reaction 
has  set  in  especially  in  the  country  parishes  who  are  tired  of  ration- 
alism and  prefer  orthodox  pastors.  But  it  is  very  sad  to  see  how 
the  main  cities,  historic  in  the  Reformed  faith,  have  gone  off  into 
rationalism,  such  as  Geneva,  Zurich  and  Heidelberg.  0  that  some 
Zwingli  would  again  rise  to  destroy  the  power  of  this  new  oppressor 
as  he  destroyed  Romanism.  Or  would  that  some  Hess  might  again* 
come  to  lead  the  Zurich  Church  back  to  the  Bible  and  to  orthodoxy. 
The  Alliance  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Churches  could  not 
do  a  better  work  than  to  establish  English  congregations  in  these 
old  Reformed  centres,  which  might  serve  to  strengthen  the  things 
that  remain  and  uphold  the  evangelical  elements  within  the  state 
churches  by  their  sympathy,  as  well  as  be  to  them  object  lessons  of 
the  practical  methods  of  church  work  among  the  English  churches. 

Reading,  Pa.  JamE3  I.  GoOD. 


Warfield  Library 


MA^  2'^  iq2  5    j 


n. 

ORIGI]^  AND  C0MP0SITI0:N^   OF  GEIS^ESIS. 

THE  SITUATION  PRESUPPOSED  IN  GENESIS. 

THEORIES  of  the  origin  of  Old  Testament  books  have,  of  late, 
been  greatly  in  excess  of  admitted  facts.  To  collect,  classify? 
verify  and  learn  the  significance  of  facts  is  doubtless  the  inquirer's  first 
business;  it  is  certainly  the  quickest  and  surest  path  to  valid  results. 
The  fifty  chapters  of  Genesis  furnish  no  small  amount  of  material. 
It  should  be  no  hopeless  task  to  determine,  within  certain  general 
limits,  the  bearing  of  this  material  on  questions  of  composition, 
authorship  and  date.  What  then  is  the  actual  situation  presupposed 
in  Genesis?  What  age  of  the  world  does  it  best  reflect?  If  the 
book  be  six  hundred  or  a  thousand  years  later  than  the  times,  per- 
sons and  things  described  in  it,  signs  of  this  fact  should  be  abundant 
and  clear ;  while  literary  and  historical  criticism  can  have  no  more 
legitimate  function  than  to  point  them  out  and  show  their  true 
meaning.  The  work  here,  moreover,  should  be  all  the  easier  that 
the  contents  of  Genesis  are  of  such  a  peculiar  cast.  To  a  great  extent, 
as  its  name  imports,  it  is  a  book  of  beginnings.  It  professes  to 
describe  the  beginnings  of  the  material  universe,  of  the  earth,  of 
man  and  his  history,  of  the  family,  of  human  sin  and  redemption,  of 
the  Sabbath  rest,  of  the  building  of  altars  and  the  anointing  of 
pillars,  of  the  public  worship  of  Jehovah,  of  polygamy,  of  agricul- 
ture and  the  arts,  of  the  abrupt  decline  of  human  life,  of  the  confu- 
sion of  tongues,  and  other  things  besides.  Nor  are  these  the  only 
peculiarities  of  the  book.  Its  geography  and  topography  are  char- 
acteristic, its  local  antiquities,  the  proverbs  and  the  customs  then  cur- 
rent, its  ethnic  presuppositions,  the  measure  and  the  kind  of  contact 
with  the  surrounding  peoples  everywhere  implied,  its  family  regis- 
ters, and  its  religion  both  on  the  human  and  the  divine  side.  In 
fact,  our  greatest  embarrassment  is  to  know  how  to  treat  properly 
such  a  mass  of  materials  in  the  limits  allowed.  We  will  look  first 
at  some  of  the  main  points  of  the  historical  narratives  of  the  book. 
One  specially  marked  feature  of  Genesis  is  its  cosmogony.  Many 
important  questions  concerning  it  still  await  solution.  They  need 
not,  however,  necessarily  defeat  a  purpose  to  discover  in  what  gen- 


ORIOIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  615 

eral  period  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  took  its  present  form.  Is  it  a 
product  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  as  some  maintain,  or  may  it  have 
been  of  Mosaic  or  even  pre-Mosaic  origin?  There  certainly  seems 
to  be  decisive  objections  against  its  origin  in  the  exile.  The  close 
relation  between  the  Biblical  and  one  of  the  Babylonian  accounts  of 
the  creation  no  one  doubts.  In  both  the  work  is  divided  into  seven 
successive  stages.  In  both  the  beginning  is  a  watery  chaos,  char- 
acterized by  a  word  having  the  same  root-meaning.  In  both  the 
general  order  of  creation,  with  man  at  the  apex,  is  the  same.  In 
both  the  celestial  bodies  are  appointed  for  "signs  and  for  seasons, 
and  for  days  and  years."  *  But  these  facts  furnish  no  just  ground 
for  the  conclusion  that  the  Biblical  account  came  from  Babylon  at 
the  time  of  the  exile,  but  quite  the  contrary ;  or  even  that  it  is  de- 
pendent on  the  Babylonian.  A  common  ultimate  origin  for  both 
is  all  that  can  be  safely  inferred.f 

(1)  The  Biblical  account  does  not  make  upon  us  the  impression  that 
it  is  the  product  of  special  study  or  reflection,  as  one  might  expect 
if  it  came  from  so  late  a  period  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century 
B.C.  It  has  a  peculiar  style,  but  it  is  lapidarian,  that  is  to  say, 
monumental  in  character.  (2)  That  the  Jews  would  adopt  from 
their  heathen  masters  of  the  exile  period,  in  any  form,  so  conspic- 
uous a  part  of  the  Torah  as  the  opening  chapter  of  Genesis — that 
they  would  find  among  them  the  formative  elements,  or  even  the 
suggestions  of  its  great  spiritual  truths,  including  its  pure  monothe- 
ism—  is  extremely  improbable,  not  to  say  incredible.  (3)  The 
Babylonian  story  of  the  creation,  as  we  have  it,  is  demonstrably 
much  earlier  than  the  exile.  It  comes  to  us  first  from  the  period 
and  the  library  of  Assurbanipal  (B.C.  668-626),  where  it  was  stored 

*See  Records  of  the  Past,  2d  series,  i,  130. 

f  Pinches  {Expository  Times,  May,  1893,  p.  350),  a  competent  authority,  thus 
expresses  himself  on  this  point:  "No  charge  of  plagiarism  can  be  brought 
against  the  Hebrew  writer  on  account  of  any  parallels  which  may  exist  between 
his  narrative  or  narratives  and  those  of  the  Babylonians.  They  are  parallels, 
and  nothing  more;  for  the  two  sets  of  narratives  are  so  different,  that  no  one, 
comparing  them,  would  venture  to  say  that  either  was  copied  from  the  other. 
That  the  legends  current  among  the  Babylonians  were,  at  least  to  a  certain 
extent,  known  to  the  scribes  of  the  Hebrews,  is  very  probable,  and  it  is  just  as 
probable  that  the  legends  [?]  current  with  the  Hebrews  were  known  to  the  scribes 
of  Babylonia.  That  the  Hebrew  writer  may  have  been  influenced  by  the  Baby- 
lonian legends,  is  not  only  possible  but  probable;  but  if  he  was  so  influenced, 
when  he  wrote,  he  has  managed  to  suppress  the  fact  in  a  remarkable  way,  for 
such  parallels  and  similarities  as  these  are  only  what  might  have  been  expected 
among  writers  so  closely  akin  in  race  and  language,  belonging  to  nationalities 
whose  forefathers  had,  in  early  times,  inhabited  the  same  country,  and  between 
whom  there  was  much  intercourse  in  later  days.  Two  descriptions  of  the  same 
event,  especially  if  that  event  be  the  Creation,  are,  moreover,  bound  to  contain 
a  certain  number  of  parallels." 


616  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

as  the  treasured  copy  of  an  original  older  by  many  hundreds  of 
years.  Assyria,  it  is  well  known,  became  an  independent  empire 
about  the  eighteenth  century  B.C.  Its  literature,  of  the  kind  we 
are  considering,  was  wholly  inherited  ;  it  was  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Babylonians,  and  originally  derived  from  the  same  Akkadian  and 
Sumerian  sources.  We  are  pointed,  accordingly,  to  the  Babylonia 
of  Abraham's  time,  if  not  much  earlier,  by  these  parallels.  If  one 
object  to  the  simple  and  natural  theory  that  it  was  through  Abra- 
ham that  the  Hebrews  received  from  antiquity  the  essential  contents 
of  the  earlier  chapters  of  Genesis,  there  is  still  another,  much  to  be 
preferred  on  the  score  of  probability  to  the  one  offered  us  by  a  cer- 
tain class  of  critics.  It  has  been  placed  beyond  doubt,  since  recent 
discoveries  in  Southern  Arabia  and  at  Tel  Loh  in  Mesopotamia, 
that  a  high  Babylonian  civilization  had  spread,  to  some  extent,  over 
Canaan  and  the  surrounding  nations  considerably  before  the  days  of 
Abraham.*  Here  then  was  an  opportunity  for  the  transmission  to 
the  future  home  of  the  Israelites  of  "  this  or  other  cosmogonies  of  pos- 
sibly Babylonian  origin.""|-  (4)  The  peculiar  structure  of  the  creation 
narrative  in  Genesis  is  doubtless  due  to  the  formative  idea  underly- 
ing the  chapter,  which  is  that  of  six  days  of  labor  followed  by  a 
Sabbath  of  rest.  This  idea  reaches  back  to  the  very  dawn  of  his- 
tory, appearing  in  the  Babylonian  record  before  it  does  in  Genesis. 
That  it  is  pre-Mosaic  in  Israel  is  clear  from  the  language  of  the 
fourth  commandment :  "  Remember  the  Sabbath  day," — showing  a 
knowledge  of  the  Sabbath,  whatever  may  be  said  of  its  early  observ- 
ance. (5)  There  are  numerous  passages  in  the  Psalms,  early  and 
late  (Ps.  viii,  xxxiii.  9,  xc.  2,  cii.  25,  27,  civ)  in  chap,  xxxviii,  and 
in  Proverbs  (viii.  22-30),  which,  to  all  appearances,  refer  to  the  Bib- 
lical account  of  the  creation.  In  view  of  these  facts,  if  one  claim  for 
it  an  exilic  or  even  a  post-Mosaic  origin,  the  claim  must  be  supported 
by  something  besides  conjecture ;  there  must  be  stringent  reasons 
given  for  so  unlikely  a  position4  As  yet  they  have  not  been  pro- 
duced. 

Three  other  narratives  of  Genesis  which  have  more  or  less  direct 

*See  Ennan,  Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenland.  Oesellschaft,  Sept.,  1892; 
Conder,  Scottish  Rev.,  Oct.,  1894,  on  "The  Earliest  Ages  of  Hebrew  History." 

•j-  See  article  by  Hommel  "  The  Oldest  Cosmogony  of  the  World, "  in  the  8.  8. 
Times,  February  17,  1894. 

X  To  the  hypothesis  that  the  scheme  of  the  creation  on  the  basis  of  the  so-called 
Hexahemeron  ia  due  to  a  later  working  over  of  the  original  material,  Dillraann 
says  {Die  Genesis,  1892,  p.  16)  that  it  is  an  unnecessary  and  essentially  impossi- 
ble theory.  Similarly,  Delitzsch,  Com.,  1887,  p.  42;  and  Strack,  Com.,  1892,  pp. 
4,  6.  Or  the  effort  to  get  rid  of  the  testimony  of  the  Decalogue  by  claiming  that 
Ex.  XX.  11  is  a  later  addition,  Delitzsch  {ibid.)  refers  to  Deut.  v.  13-15,  where  the 
existence  of  the  Sabbath  is  predicated,  though  the  motive  urged  for  its  observ- 
ance is  new. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  617 

connection  with  the  monuments  of  Babylon  are  those  of  the  Fall,  the 
Deluge  and  of  the  Tower  of  Babel.  All  Assyrian  scholars  are  not 
agreed  that  there  is  a  clear  tradition  of  the  Fall  recorded  on  the 
monuments.  Kecently,  however,  new  discoveries  have  enlarged  our 
knowledge  of  the  subject.  It  is  now  held,  at  least  by  some  of  them, 
that  while  there  is  no  complete  monumental  record  of  this  event 
extant,  there  are  in  the  same  creation  series  fragmentary  passages 
showing  that  the  story  was  known  to  the  Babylonians  in  a  form 
resembling,  in  several  important  respects,  the  Biblical.  Both  have 
an  earthly  paradise,  a  tree  of  knowledge,  and,  apparently,  a  tree  of 
life.  In  both  the  sin  consists  in  the  eating  of  forbidden  fruit. 
Thus  runs,  in  part,  the  version  : 

"  The  great  gods,  all  determiners  of  fate. 

They  entered,  and  death,  like  the  god,  soon  was  filled. 

In  sin  one  with  the  other  in  compact  joins. 

The  command  was  established,  in  the  garden  of  the  god. 

The  tree  Asnan  they  ate,  they  broke. 

Its  stalk  they  destroyed. 

They  drank  the  sweet  juice  which  injures  the  body. 

Great  was  their  sin.     Themselves  they  exalted. 

To  Merodach  their  Redeemer  he  appointed  their  destiny."* 
In  addition  to  this  fragment,  there  is  a  small  Babylonian  cylinder 
preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  of  uncertain,  but,  as  is  generally 
agreed,  of  very  ancient  date,  which  seems  to  make  definite  refer- 
ence to  the  fall  of  man.  It  contains  a  picture  of  the  tree  of  knowl- 
edge, or,  according  to  Babylonian  ideas,  of  the  tree  of  life.  On 
either  side  sit  a  man  and  woman,  while  behind  the  woman  the  ser- 
pent appears  as  if  addressing  himself  to  her.  There  can  be  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  what  this  pictorial  representation  was  meant  to  teach. 
It  shows  that,  in  its  most  essential  features,  the  Biblical  story  of  the 
Fall  was  widely  current  among  Shemitic  peoples. 

Here  again,  it  is  to  be  observed,  whatever  the  ultimate  relation 
of  these  accounts  may  prove  to  be,  they  transport  us  by  their  essen- 
tial contents  to  the  very  earliest  times.  If,  accordingly,  one  is 
pleased  to  conjecture  that  the  Biblical  narrative  assumed  its  pres- 
ent form  at  a  late  period  in  the  Hebrew  history,  he  is  entitled  to 
all  the  support  which  an  unlikely  conjecture  affords  and  to  nothing 
more.  "Very  late  it  cannot  have  been,  since  there  are  several  ref- 
erences to  it  in  the  Proverbs  ascribed  to  Solomon  (Prov.  iii.  18, 
xi.  30,  xiii.  12,  xv.  4),  as  well  as  in  the  earlier  Prophets  (Joel  ii.  3 ;. 
Hosea  x.  8).t     In  fact,  there  seems  to  be  nothing  to  forbid  the  nar- 

*  See  Boscawen,  Expository  Times,  1893,  pp.  439-441  ;  but  cf.  Pinches,  ibid.^ 
1892,  pp.  123-125. 

f  Only  here,  outside  of  Genesis,  are  the  Hebrew  words  for  thorns  and  thistles 
found  in  combination. 


618  2HE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

rative  of  the  fall  in  Genesis  being  the  product  of  an  age  preceding 
Moses. 

In  the  case  of  the  Deluge,  the  Babylonian  and  Biblical  accounts 
display,  even  in  the  smallest  details,  a  most  remarkable  similarity. 
They  agree  in  the  main,  as  it  respects  the  reason  of  the  judgment; 
definitely  stating  that  it.  was  on  account  of  sin,  that  the  warning  of 
it  was  first  given  to  one  man  and  that  it  was  to  be  a  flood  of  waters. 
This  man  is  said  to  have  done  as  he  was  bidden.  The  object  of  the 
vessel  is  declared  to  be  to  save  the  Babylonian  Noah  and  others,  so 
as  "  to  preserve  the  seed  of  life."  The  flood  has  a  second  announce- 
ment as  in  the  Bible.  The  hero  embarks  with  his  relatives  and  the 
beasts  of  the  field.  The  door  of  the  vessel  is  shut  and  the  flood  ap- 
pears as  announced.  It  is  caused  by  rain  and  the  convulsions  of 
nature.  Mankind  without  is  totally  destroyed.  The  duration  of 
the  flood  is  carefully  stated.  This  other  Noah,  like  the  Biblical, 
opens  a  window.  The  ship  stands  in  the  region  of  Armenia.  Birds 
are  sent  out  after  seven  days.  The  occupants  of  the  ship  disembark. 
A  sacrifice  is  offered  to  the  gods,  who  are  pleased  with  the  odor,  and, 
as  the  text  is  generally  read,  a  rainbow  appears  in  the  sky  and  a 
promise  is  given  that  the  world  shall  not  again  be  destroyed.  At 
the  end,  the  man  is  blessed  by  Bel.  This  is  the  surprising  Baby- 
lonian account. 

Unlike  the  two  preceding  narratives  examined,  the  first  of  which 
is  ascribed  by  critics  to  the  document  P  (dated  B.C.  444),  the  sec- 
ond to  J  (dated  B.C.  800),  we  have  here  combined  together  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  supposed,  extracts  from  both  these  documents ;  hence 
the  Biblical  story,  as  a  whole,  is  held  not  to  be  earlier  than  B.C. 
444.  The  utter  improbability  of  such  a  theory  is  patent  on  the 
surface.  The  Babylonian  story  of  the  Deluge,  like  that  of  the 
Creation  and  the  Fall,  reaches  us  through  the  library  of  Assur- 
banipal,  two  hundred  years  before  the  exile.  It  is  an  acknowl- 
edged copy  of  an  original  earlier  by  centuries,  more  properly 
millenniums.*  That  is  to  say,  obviously  long  before  Moses,  the 
principal  contents  of  the  Biblical  narrative  of  the  Flood,  mostly 
in  the  Biblical  order,  were  current  in  ancient  Babylonia,  the 
very  region  from  which  Abraham  set  out  to  find  a  home  in  Canaan. 
The  monuments  at  Tel  Loh  were  discovered  by  the  French  consul 
de  Sarzeh  at  Bassorah  (1880-1881).  They  are  not  later  than  the 
twenty-fourth  century  B.C.  They  furnish,  it  is  said,  the  oldest 
Akkadian  inscriptions  yet  found.  Taking,  these,  along  with  the 
Tel  el-Amarna  tablets,  it  is  safe  to  infer  that  the  political  history 

*The  legends  of  Gilgames,  of  which  the  flood  story  forms  a  part,  were 
brought  to  Nineveh  by  the  scribes  of  Assurbanipal  from  the  Akkadian  library 
of  Erech,  among  the  oldest  of  Chaldaea. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  619 

of  Palestine  previous  to  the  conquest  by  Joshua  included  two  peri- 
ods :  (1)  That  of  the  domination  of  the  Akkadians,  probably  a  Mon- 
gol  people,  and  (2)  that  of  the  Egyptians  as  revealed  in  the  Tel  el- 
Amarna  tablets.  The  first  of  these  afforded  occasion  and  opportu- 
nity for  a  considerable  immigration  of  Shemitic  tribes  southward 
across  the  fords  of  the  Euphrates  at  Carchemish.* 

What  room,  then,  is  there  for  the  hypothesis — for  that  is  all  that  it 
is — that  the  Biblical  account  is  made  up  of  two  different  and  dis- 
cordant stories  originating  four  hundjed  years  apart  and  first  united 
together  B.C.  444?  We  do  not  say,  observe,  that  the  Biblical  storv 
is  dependent  on  the  Babylonian,  or  vice  versa ;  but  only  that  the 
great  antiquity  of  the  Babylonian,  seeing  that  it  reproduces  to  such 
a  degree  and  in  such  form  the  Biblical,  is  prima  facie  evidence 
against  the  position  of  our  critics.f  More  than  that,  it  directly 
favors  the  view  that  this  narrative,  like  the  two  preceding,  came  to 
the  Hebrews  through  their  Mesopotamian  ancestors, — if  not  by  means 
of  Abraham  on  his  immigration  into  Canaan,  then  by  the  consid- 
erably earlier  spread  of  Babylonian  civilization  to  the  west  and 
south. 

The  connection  of  the  Tower  of  Babel,  mentioned  in  Gen.  xi. 
3,  4,  with  the  history  of  Babylonia  is  less  clear.  The  "  Land  of 
Shinar  "  is  doubtless  the  Sumer  of  the  monuments.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  too,  the  bitumen  said  to  have  been  used  on  the  structure  is 
still  abundant  in  the  neighborhood  of  Babylon,  and  the  word  for 
brick  is  common  in  the  earlier  and  later  Shemitic  languages. 
Schrader  X  insists  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Biblical  story 
refers  to  a  structure  which  once  really  existed  and  whose  ruins  may 
still  exist.  This  need  not  be  true  as  it  respects  the  last  part  of  the 
assertion ;  but  if  it  were  true,  it  would  leave  little  to  be  desired  in 
the  matter  of  antiquity.  Birs-Nimrud,  near  Borsippa,  and  Babil, 
more  especially  its  temple  of  Merodach,  with  which,  severally,  the 
Tower  of  Babel  has  been  identified  by  different  writers,  had  their 
origin  during  the  earlier  Babylonian  civilization.  In  any  case,  ac- 
cordingly, there  appears  to  be  nothing  to  invalidate  the  theory  of  a 
pre-Mosaic  date  for  the  Biblical  account. 

Of  the  other  earlier  narratives  of  Genesis  we  will  next  look  at 
those  of  Cain  and  Abel  (iv.  1-24),  the  Nephilim  (vi.  4),  Noah  after 
the  Flood  (ix.  18-27)  and  Nimrod  (x.  8,  9).     In  the  first,  relating 

*Cf.  Conder,  in  Tlce  Scottish  Review,  October,  1894,  "The  Earliest  Ages  of 
History." 

f  Strack  {Com.,  inloco)  candidly  admits  that  the  Babylonian  account  through- 
out runs  parallel  with  that  of  the  Bible.  His  inference,  however,  that  origin- 
ally P  and  J  contained  here  much  the  same  material  is  plainly  suicidal  for  the 
current  analysis. 

X  Die  Keilinscliriften,  etc.,  2te  Auflage,  p.  121. 


620  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

to  Cain  and  Abel,  Cain  is  represented  as  a  tiller  of  the  ground  and' 
Abel  a  keeper  of  sheep.  It  will  be  noted,  that  the  domestication  of 
the  sheep  has  taken  place,  and  the  distinction  between  an  agri- 
cultural and  a  pastoral  life  is,  to  a  degree,  presupposed.  The  pro- 
cess of  reaching  it  need  not  have  been  a  long  one.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  matter  of  sacrificing,  in  the  simple  form  in  which  it  is  here 
presented.  In  the  alarm  which  Cain,  the  murderer,  felt  lest  he,  in 
turn,  might  be  put  to  death,  there  is  shown  the  natural  feeling  which 
afterwards  underlay  the  custom  of  blood  revenge.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  suppose  that  such  a  custom  already  existed.  That  there  were 
other  children  of  Adam  and  Eve,  of  whom  the  narrative  does  not 
definitely  speak,  is  clear  from  the  context  (iv.  17,  v,  4),  It  is  also 
in  harmony  with  the  situation  that  Cain,  in  his  appeal  to  Jehovah, 
speaks  of  the  remaining  inhabitants  of  the  world  as  though  they 
were  friends  of  Abel  ("  whosoever  findeth  me  shall  slay  me").  The 
land  of  Nod,  to  which  Cain  fled,  seems  to  mean  no  more  than  the 
land  of  his  wanderings.  When  it  is  said  that  he  afterwards  "  be- 
gan to  build  a  city," — for  that  is  the  force  of  the  words  in  Hebrew, — 
we  are  not  to  think  of  a  city  in  the  modern  sense  (cf.  2  Kgs,  xvii.  9) ; 
but  rather  of  a  walled  hamlet,  meant  largely,  it  is  to  be  presumed, 
for  Cain's  own  protection.  The  record  of  the  beginning  of  plural 
marriages  with  Lamech,  a  descendant  of  Cain,  is  significant.  It 
would  hardly  have  been  recorded  unless  it  really  marked  the  begin- 
ning of  the  deterioration.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  statement 
concerning  Jabal,  Jubal  and  Tubal-Cain,  that  with  them  several  of 
the  arts  began.  It  does  not  imply  that  they  had  reached  any  great 
development  in  their  time,  but  the  contrary.  So,  in  conclusion,  as 
there  is  a  sufficient  moral  and  religious  reason  for  the  insertion  of 
this  chapter  at  this  point  in  Genesis,  so  there  is  nothing  in  its  exter- 
nal form  which  makes  it  unsuitable  as  an  introduction  to  Mosaic 
institutions. 

The  four  verses  prefixed  to  the  story  of  the  Flood  (vi,  1-4),^ 
relating  to  the  Nephilim,  the  Gibborim  and  the  intermarriage 
of  the  "  Sons  of  God  "  with  the  "  daughters  of  men,"  are  of  consid- 
rable  archaeological  interest.  By  a  certain  class  of  critics  they  are 
regarded  as  indisputable  evidence  of  the  survival  of  Hebrew  myths 
in  the  Bible.  By  the  sons  of  God,  they  believe,  the  angels  are 
meant.  If  this  were  true  it  would  at  the  same  time  be  a  sign  of 
the  highest  antiquity.  It  is  in  far  better  harmony  with  the  context, 
however,  as  well  as  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  generally,  to 
suppose  that  by  the  sons  of  God  the  Sethites  are  intended.  Their 
marriages  with  the  daughters  of  the  rest  of  men,  as  the  race  in- 
creased and  they  were  brought  into  more  immediate  vicinity,  would 
prove  fatal  to  the  earlier  moral  superiority  of  the  Sethites,  and  so 
would  be  offensive  to  God.     The  product  of  such  marriages  was  the 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  621 

more  notable  because  it  was  the  union,  as  we  have  reason  to  suppose, 
of  the  best  physical  developraeat  of  the  time,  in  stature,  longevity 
^nd  the  like,  with  the  highest  progress  in  mechanical  skill,  espe- 
cially in  the  manufacture  of  weapons.  That  this  view,  most  com- 
monly held,  can  be  exegetically  defended  has  been  shown  among 
others  recently  by  Strack,  of  Berlin.* 

Of  Noah  after  the  Flood  it  is  said  (ix.  18-27)  that  he  began  to  be 
a  husbandman  and  planted  a  vineyard.  It  is  further  noted  that, 
apparently  as  the  result  of  his  ignorance,  he  was  overcome  by  the 
wine  which  he  had  made.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  orig- 
inal home  of  the  vine  is  claimed  to  have  been  in  the  regions  of 
Armenia,  whence,  to  some  extent  even  in  historic  times,  it  has 
found  its  way  to  other  peoples.  It  was  domesticated  in  Palestine 
before  the  days  of  Abraham  (xiv.  8).  It  might  be  claimed  by  some 
that  the  prophecy  of  Noah  found  in  the  context,  especially  in  its 
•curse  of  Canaan,  reflects  a  far  later  period.  If  it  be  really  a 
prophecy,  as  we  believe,  the  peculiar  reference  to  Canaan  would  be 
no  valid  objection  to  its  early  date.  If  it  were  to  be  admitted  that 
it  is  no  prophecy,  it  would  bring  us  no  further  down  than  the  times 
of  Abraham,  when,  according  to  Genesis,  the  judgment  on  Canaan 
was  already  in  prospect  (xv.  16,  etc.). 

The  reference  to  Nimrod  in  x.  8-11  is  of  a  remarkable  character, 
and  he  must  have  been  an  extraordinary  personage.  That  he  is 
spoken  of  as  a  "  mighty  hunter,"  is  every  way  suitable  to  the  habits 
of  an  oriental  monarch  of  antiquity.  The  name  Nimrod  has  not 
yet  come  to  light  on  the  monuments.  The  Bible  seems  to  indicate 
that  he  was  of  Cassite  origin  ("  And  Cush  begat  Nimrod  ").  The 
centre  of  the  Cassite  supremacy,  it  is  now  known,  was  Babylon  and 
its  neighboring  cities.  He  is  further  said  to  have  gone  forth  (better 
it  would  seem,  "  One  went  forth ")  "  from  that  land  and  builded 
Nineveh,"  etc.  It  used  to  be  thought,  in  spite  of  the  Bible,  that 
Assyria  was  older  than  Babylonia;  this  theory  has  now,  of  course, 
been  abandoned.f  Of  the  cities  of  Assyria  named  in  vers.  11,  12 
all  have  not  yet  been  identified.  When  Nineveh  was  founded,  it  is 
not  known,  but  certainly  long  before  Moses.  It  is  fair  to  presume 
that  Calah  and  Kesin  (Reheboth-Ir  was  simply  a  suburb  of  a  city) 
were  not  much  younger.:}: 

*  Com.,  in  loco. 

fCf.  Micah  v.  G,  where  Assyria  and  the  land  of  Nimrod  are  used  synony- 
mously. 

X  According  to  Schrader  {Die  Keilimcliriften,  etc.,  p.  96),  an  Assyrian  king 
who  reigned  about  B.C.  850,  states  that  Calah  was  "founded  "  by  Shalmaneser  I, 
about  B.C.  1300.  It  may  well  be  doubted,  in  the  circumstances,  whether  this 
'^in^  founded  and  did  not  rather  rebuild  the  city.  It  needed  rebuilding  again  in 
the  ninth  century  B.C.     Cf.   Com.  of  Strack  in  loco,  who  renders  the  Assyrian 


622  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

"We  now  come  to  the  life  of  Abraham.  Genesis  informs  us  that 
he  came  from  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees."  Until  recent  times,  outside  of 
this  Biblical  reference,  the  place  was  quite  unknown.  It  is  now 
recognized  as  having  been  once  a  capital  (town  or  city),  whose  politi- 
cal conditions  at  the  time  of  the  patriarch  are  fairly  well  understood. 
Even  names  corresponding  to  those  of  Abraham,  Sarah  and  Milcah 
occur  on  the  documents  of  the  country.  At  the  time  of  Terah's 
removal  from  his  native  city  to  Harran,  a  popular  movement  of  the 
Babylonian  people  carrying  with  it  their  traditions  and  their  civili- 
zation towards  the  west  was  taking  place.  Harran  itself  was  a 
frontier  town  of  Babylonia,  600  miles  away,  and  like  it  worshiping 
the  moon-god.  The  much  traveled  road  to  it  led  along  the  banks 
of  the  Euphrates.  In  view  of  these  facts  a  distinguished  archeeolo- 
gist  has  written  :* 

"Such  a  remarkable  coincidence  between  the  Biblical  narrative 
and  the  evidence  of  archaeological  research  cannot  be  the  result  of 
chance.  The  narrative  must  be  historical ;  no  writer  of  late  date^ 
even  if  he  were  a  Babylonian,  could  have  invented  a  story  so  exactly 
in  accordance  with  what  we  now  know  to  have  been  the  truth.  For 
a  story  of  the  kind  to  have  been  the  invention  of  Palestinian  tradi- 
tion is  equally  impossible.  To  the  unprejudiced  mind  there  is  no 
escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  history  of  the  migration  of 
Terah  from  Ur  to  Harran  is  founded  on  fact. 

"  If  founded  on  fact,  we  may  further  conclude  that  it  was  recorded 
in  contemporaneous  documents.  We  have  learned  from  the  Tel  el- 
Amarna  tablets  that  before  the  age  of  the  Exodus  the  Babylonian 
language  and  writing  were  used  throughout  Palestine,  and  that 
Babylonian  literature  must  have  been  well  known  there ;  we  have 
also  learned  from  the  cuneiform  monuments  of  Babylonia  itself  that 
Babylonian  armies  had  trodden  the  '  harran '  or  high  road  to  Syria 
centuries  before  the  birth  of  Abraham,  and  that  Palestine  had  been 
subject  to  the  Babylonian  kings.  When  Abraham  entered  Canaan, 
the  Canaanites  were  not  only  acquainted  with  the  cuneiform  sylla- 
bary of  Babylonia,  they  were  also  acquainted  with  the  Babylonian 
language.  The  Elamite  suzerain  of  Babylonia  claimed  to  be 
lord  of  Palestine  as  well,  and  Abraham  would  thus  have  found  him- 
self in  what  might  be  considered  a  sort  of  province  of  the  Babylo- 
nian empire.  At  all  events  it  was  a  country  into  which  the  lan- 
guage and  literature,  the  theology  and  beliefs,  of  the  Babylonians 
had  deeply  penetrated." 

word  by  "gemacht,"  that  is  built.     The  passage  referred  to  reads,  "  Kalhu, 
which  Salmanaser,  king  of  the  land  of  Assyria,  the  prince  my  predecessor,  had 
built  (epu-us),  that  city  had  fallen  into  decay  and  ruin,  that  city  anew  I  built' 
(ab-ni)." 
*  Sayce,  8.  S.  Times,  January  2Q,  1894. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  623 

That  Abraham  had  a  servant,  Eliezer,  the  Damascene,  seems 
to  be  one  of  the  undesigned  coincidences  which  mark  the  patri- 
arch's journey  to  Canaan,  as  Hagar  does  a  subsequent  one  to 
Egypt.  The  famine  which  drove  Abraham  to  the  Nile  land 
was  a  common  experience  of  his  times.  Ilis  treatment  by  the  rul- 
ing monarch,  the  gifts  he  received,  including  camels*  and  excluding 
horses,  abundant  in  the  period  of  Joseph,  tally  with  the  revelations 
of  secular  history,  as  far  as  known.f  Verifications  by  the  inscrip- 
tions of  the  episode  in  Abraham's  life  recorded  in  chap.  xiv.  are  so 
numerous  and  so  far  reaching  in  their  relations,  that  an  entire 
paper  would  not  suffice  to  set  them  adequately  forth.:}:  The 
antiquity  of  the  material  is  clearly  stamped  on  the  language  inci- 
dentally employed.  We  read  of  "  Bela,  the  sam  e  is  Zoar  ;"  "  the  vale 
of  Siddim,  the  same  is  the  Salt  Sea ;"  of  "  El-paran,  which  is  by  the 
wilderness ;"  of  "  En-mishpat,  the  same  is  Kadesh  ;"  of  "  the  vale 
of  Shaveh,  the  same  is  the  King's  Vale,"  etc.  Says  Hommel:  "If 
Genesis  xiv  were  really  '  a  very  late  Midrash-like  record  from  post- 
exilic  times,'  how  in  that  event  should  the  supposed  author,  who  in 
this  chapter  created  a  masterpiece,  have  been  able  to  make  use  of 
antiquated  names  and  phrases,  which  he  himself  had  to  explain  by 
accompanying  glosses  for  the  sake  of  intelligibility?  ....  Was 
this  perhaps  a  ruse  of  the  author  to  give  to  his  production  the 
appearance  of  antiquity  ?  If  so,  I  must  confess  that  such  refinement 
of  deception  is  without  parallel  in  all  the  Old  Testament,  and  that 
if  indeed  we  were  to  credit  the  author  with  adopting  such  an  arti- 
fice, it  seems  extraordinary  that  he  should  have  used  his  old  Baby- 
lonian data  for  the  embellishment  of  just  this  scene  belonging  to 
the  later  period  of  Abraham's  life,  when  there  was  a  whole  series  of 
hoary  records  that  afforded  a  much  more  inviting  field  for  such  oper- 
ations."§  In  other  respects,  the  historical  situation  of  the  patriarch, 
as  hitherto  generally  understood,  is  reproduced  with  a  minuteness 
and  an  accuracy  of  detail  most  wonderful,  even  in  this  day  of  arch- 
aeological surprises.     The  rulers'  names  forming  the  alliance  against 

*See  Tomkins,  Timea  of  Abraham.,  pp.  51,  52,  and  Rawlinson,  Eerodotus,  i, 
365. 

fStrack,  Com.,  in  loco,  quotes  Wiedemann,  Geschiehte  von  Alt-Egypten,  1891, 
p.  77,  who  says  that  the  presence  of  the  camel  in  Egypt  is  verified  hy  classical 
writers,  and  the  fact  that  the  animal  does  not  appear  on  the  monuments  may  be 
due,  if  not  a  mere  accident,  to  religious,  considerations.  Cf.  Tomkins,  Times  of 
Abraham,  p.  153,  who  notes  that  the  animal  is  mentioned  in  several  interesting 
texts  in  the  nineteenth  dynasty  and  that  the  gift  of  camels  to  Abraham  would 
be  natural  from  the  shepherd-kings. 

:}:The  title  Pharaoh  is  found  in  the  oldest  monuments  and  used  as  a  title  of  the 
Egyptian  kings  down  to  the  Persian  conquest.  On  the  story  of  Sarah  see 
Spurrell,  p.  129. 

§  5.  5.  Times,  March  5,  1893 


624  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

the  kings  of  the  Canaanitish  pentapolis,  with  a  single  exception, 
have  all  been  identified.  The  Elamite  supremacy  in  Palestine  at 
this  period,  so  long  held  to  be  an  impossibility,  is  now  one  of  the 
best  recognized  of  facts.  Even  a  personage  analogous  to  the  hither- 
to mysterious  Melchizedek  has  been  discovered  in  Ebed-Tob  of  the 
Tel  el-Amarna  tablets.  It  is  no  unexpected  language,  accordingly, 
which,  in  view  of  recent  disclosures  in  the  East,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  of  the  discoverers  uses,  who  says:  "Underneath  the 
narratives  of  Genesis  lie  historical  documents  which  come  down 
from  the  age  of  the  events  which  they  record,  and  possess,  accord- 
ingly, all  the  value  of  contemporaneous  evidence.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  period  when  the  book  was  compiled,  its  author  or 
authors  made  use  of  written  materials,  and  these  written  mate- 
rials were  as  historicallytrustworthy  as  those  on  which  we  base 
our  knowledge  of  the  Persian  wars  with  Greece.  The  history  of 
Canaan  before  the  Israelitish  conquest  was  not  a  blank  to  be  filled 
up  by  the  legends  and  systematizing  fictions  of  a  later  day  ;  it  belongs 
to  a  period  when  reading  and  writing  were  widely  known  and  prac- 
ticed, and  when  contemporaneous  events  were  recorded  on  imper- 
ishable clay."* 

An  important  episode  in  the  life  of  Abraham  was  the  destruction 
of  the  cities  of  the  plain  (Gen.  xix).  The  patriarch  was  then  at 
Mamre  near  Hebron.  The  harmony  of  the  Biblical  record  with  the 
topography  of  the  country  (cf.  Gen.  xiii.  10,  xviii.  16,  xix.  27)  and 
with  its  geological  structure  (xiv.  10)  is  most  remarkable.  The 
five  cities,  it  is  evident,  lay  to  the  north  of  the  Dead  Sea,  between 
which  and*  Abraham  was  the  vale  of  Siddim  with  its  pits  of  asphalt.f 
From  his  outlook  on  the  heights  east  of  Mamre  he  could  easily  have 
observed  the  smoke  of  the  land  going  up  "  as  the  smoke  of  a 
furnace."  The  story  of  the  incestuous  origin  of  Ammon  and  Moab 
appended  to  this  same  chapter,  moreover,  is  not  the  product  of  later 
Jewish  hate,  as  some  have  affirmed.  It  has  the  correct  historical 
perspective.  We  know  from  the  Moabite  stone  in  the  ninth  century 
B.C.,  that  the  language  of  Moab  corresponded  with  that  of  Israel  (i.e., 
with  the  Hebrew) — in  fact  was  Hebrew.  ^  The  names  of  the  peoples 
were  suggested  by  their  peculiar  ancestry.  Their  title,  "  sons  of  Lot," 
is  equally  pertinent.  They  are  constantly  named  together  in  the 
Bible  (Num.  xvii ;  1  Sam.  xiv.  47,  etc.).  As  early  as  Deut.  ii.  9,  19, 
their  descent  from  Lot  is  made  the  ground  why  Israel,  on  its  way  to 

*Sayce,  Expository  Times,  December,  1891,  p.  117.  Cf.  article  by  Hommel,  8. 
8.  Times,  March  5,  1892. 

t  Observe  the  route  of  the  hostile  forces  from  Mount  Seir,  El-Paran  and  Kadesh 
through  the  land  of  the  Amalekites  and  Amorites  to  their  battlefield  before 
Sodom. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  625 

Canaan  from  Egypt,  refused  either  to  conquer  or  to  molest  them. 
The  names  of  both  Ammon  and  Moab  appear  on  the  Assyrian  monu- 
ments, but  in  no  way  to  conflict  with  Biblical  statements. 

In  the  account  of  Abraham's  offering  of  Isaac,  the  event  itself 
furnishes  one  of  the  best  evidences  of  its  antiquity.  That  it  took 
place  on  an  elevation  in  "  the  land  of  Moriah  "  is  no  indication  of  a 
post-Davidic  period.  All  the  conditions  of  the  narrative  point  to 
this  site.  Beersheba,  where  Abraham  was,  is  a  twelve  hours'  ride 
away  from  Hebron,  and  thus  another  day's  journey  distant  from 
Jerusalem.  We  read  that  on  the  third  day  the  patriarch  saw  the 
place  afar  off — supposably  on  the  brow  of  the  hill  lying  between 
Bethlehem  and  Jerusalem.  That  in  this  same  region  Jehovah  sub- 
sequently appeared  to  David  and  that  the  temple  itself  was  built  on 
Mt.  Moriah  are  frankly  admitted  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  that "  there 
is  a  wonderful  fitness  in  connecting  this  stupendous  act  of  piety  (on 
Abraham's  part)  with  the  place  where  the  glory  of  God  should 
(afterwards)  dwell,  and  where  perfect  atonement  should  be  offered 
for  the  people  of  Israel."*  Even  the  incident  of  the  ram  caught  by 
his  horns  in  the  thicket  is  not  without  its  value  as  a  corroborative 
testimony  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  record.  We  are  told  that  the 
horns  of  the  Syrian  ram  are  remarkably  twisted,  and  thus  one 
might  easily  have  become  entangled  as  described.f 

The  detailed  statement  of  the  purchase  by  Abraham  of  a  sepul- 

*Deane,  Life  and  Times  of  Abraham,  p.  143. 

f  On  undesigned  coincidences  between  the  account  of  the  destruction  of  the 
cities  of  the  plain  and  topographical  and  geological  data,  see  S.  S.  T'imes,  Feb. 
3,  1894,  p.  70  (Beecher),  and  p.  71  (Geikie)  and  p.  68  (Tristram).  The  last 
is  important  enough  to  be  cited  as  a  whole : — 

"  Nothing  strikes  the  careful  observer  on  the  spot,  in  the  Holy  Land,  more 
than  the  wonderful  exactness  of  minute  and  incidental  expression,  when  tested 
by  the  actual  topography  of  the  country.  It  is  so  with  respect  to  the  situation 
of  what  may  be  termed  the  prehistoric  cities  of  the  plain,  Sodom  and  Gomorrah. 
It  has  often  been  imagined  that  these  cities  were  submerged  during  the  great 
convulsion  of  nature,  and  are  now  buried  under  the  waters  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
There  is  no  foundation  in  the  Biblical  story  for  such  an  idea.  We  are  told  that 
God  rained  fire  and  brimstone  upon  those  cities,  and  overthrew  them,  and  all 
the  plain,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities,  and  that  which  grew  upon  the 
ground.  The  word  kikkar,  rendered  'plain,'  has  the  same  sense  as  the  modern 
Ghor,  the  name  still  applied  to  the  Jordan  valley,  north  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
Geological  investigation  shows  us  that  they  never  could  have  been  in  the  area 
at  present  covered  by  the  waters  of  the  Dead  Sea,  which  is  simply  a  vast  fissure, 
a  continuation,  a  deepening,  of  the  Jordan  valley,  with  steep  sloping  sides. 
The  geological  evidence  is  that  the  cities  must  have  been  either  north  or  south 
of  the  Dead  Sea.  A  careful  examination  of  the  history  of  the  invasion  of  Che- 
dorlaomer  shows  that  they  could  not  have  been  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  but  to 
the  north  of  it  ;  for,  in  returning  from  their  raid  in  Mount  Seir,  they  attack  the 
Amorites  in  Hazazon-tamar,  which  is  Eugedi,  and  after  that,  meet  the  king  of 
Sodom  and  hia  confederates.  Had  the  cities  been  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  they 
41 


626  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

chre  from  the  Hittite  settlers  of  Canaan  (chap,  xxiii)  is  a  faith- 
ful and  striking  protraiture,  as  far  as  it  goes,  of  the  historic  situa- 
tion there  B.C.  1900.  Evidence  from  the  context  of  a  com- 
paratively civilized  condition  appears  in  the  fact  that  burial  is 
by  entombment,  that  silver  is  circulated  as  money  and  that  care- 
fully drawn  contracts  are  used  in  the  exchange  of  property.  But 
six  hundred  years  earlier,  it  is  said,  the  ancestors  of  these  same 
Hittites  cut  cedars  in  northern  Lebanon.*  And  it  is  a  fact  of  im- 
portance to  us  that  in  the  eighth  century  B.C.  this  people  disap- 
pears, as  such,  from  Hebrew  history,  their  power  having  been  broken 
by  the  Assyrian  Sargon. 

The  succeeding  narratives  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  aside  from  the  fact 
that  they  bear  the  same  literary  stamp  as  the  matter  with  which 
they  are  associated,  contain  little  to  indicate  the  period  in  which 
they  arose.f  A  circumstance  of  some  importance,  however,  is  re- 
corded in  the  life  of  Judah,  one  of  Jacob's  sons.  He  is  said  to  have 
been  in  possession  of  a  signet  ring,  together  with  the  cord  by  which 
it  was  suspended  from  the  neck  (xxxviii.  18).  For  a  long  time  this 
signet  ring  was  regarded  as  the  only  evidence  in  Genesis  that  the 
patriarchs  may  have  been  acquainted,  to  any  extent,  with  written 
characters.  In  fact  one  of  the  most  recent  and  fair-minded  of  com- 
mentators remarks  that  there  was  probably  engraved  on  the  ring 

must  have  marched  through  their  country  before  meeting  the  Amorites,  whom 
they  encounter  in  the  vale  of  Siddim,  and  then  proceed  towards  Damascus. 

"Now,  at  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom,  Abraham  was  encamped  at 
Mamre,  the  site  of  which  is  universally  identified  very  near  Hebron.  Abra- 
ham, we  are  told  in  the  sixteenth  verse,  accompanied  the  angels  who  looked 
towards  Sodom,  to  bring  them  on  the  way.  That  way  could  only  be  by  ascend- 
ing the  range  of  hills  immediately  east  of  Mamre.  Here  Abraham  halted,  and 
remained  standing  before  the  Lord,  whilst  the  two  proceeded  on  their  way. 

"It  is  nowhere  stated  that  they  could  see  Sodom,  but  it  is  stated  that  on  the 
following  morning  Abraham  got  up  early  and  went  to  the  same  place,  and 
thence  looked  towards  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and  towards  all  the  land  of  the 
plain,  and  saw  the  smoke  of  the  country  going  up  as  the  smoke  of  a  furnace. 
Now,  looking  from  those  heights  towards  the  south  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  the 
distant  view  is  completely  shut  in,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  recognize 
whence  any  smoke  might  ascend.  But  towards  the  north,  although  it  is  im- 
possible to  see  the  surface  of  the  plain  of  Jordan  itself,  yet  the  wide,  flat  depres- 
sion, which  is  formed  by  the  plain  of  Jericho  on  the  one  side  and  the  plain  ot 
Shittim  on  the  other,  can  be  easily  recognized  by  the  wide  gap  between  the 
lofty  plateau  on  which  we  stand  and  the  distant  but  still  more  lofty  range  of  the 
mountains  of  Moab  and  Gilead  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan  valley,  with  a 
gauzy  cloud  of  haze  intervening.  Thus  the  spectator  could  exactly  locate  the 
spot  whence  he  saw  the  smoke  arising,  while  smoke  from  no  other  part  of  the 
valley  could  be  so  identified.  Hence  the  notable  accuracy  of  the  expression 
' looked  towards  Sodom.'" 

*Conder,  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet,  2d  series,  «.  «.  "Hittite."  Of.  Sayce,  The  Hit- 
tites, 1890. 

t  Sayce:  S.  S.  Times:  1894,  p.  134,   "  Senjerli." 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  627 

some  kind  of  pictorial  representation ;  but  that  one  need  not  think  of 
an  inscription  in  connection  with  it,  or  of  an  acquaintance  with  the 
art  of  writing  in  the  patriarchal  period,*  As  already  intimated  above, 
the  time  has  more  than  passed  when  any  doubt  need  be  entertained 
on  this  subject.  Scholars  some  time  ago  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  Shemitic  alphabetic  characters  arose  some  centuries  before 
the  age  of  Moses. 

One  of  them  remarks :  "  The  possible  date  of  the  origin  of  this 

alphabet  is  thus  brought  within  definite  limits The  possible 

limits  lie  between  the  twenty-third  and  seventeenth  centuries,  and 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  we  should  not  provisionally  accept 
the  approximate  date  which  has  been  proposed  by  de  Eoug6  and 
place  it  in  or  about  the  nineteenth  century  B.C."  f 

These  conclusions  are  not  matter  of  simple  theory ;  they  are  based 
on  actual  archaeological  discoveries  made  in  Egypt  and  especially 
in  Southern  Arabia.  The  so-called  Minntean  inscriptions  of  the 
latter  place  brought  to  light  by  Dr.  Glaser  and  others,  as  we  are 
informed,  prove  that  as  early  as  the  days  of  Abraham  the  nomadic 
tribes,  passing  back  and  forth  between  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  among 
whom  may  be  reckoned  in  a  general  way  the  Hebrews  themselves, 
were  in  possession  of  a  Shemitic  alphabet,  even  though  they  may 
have  made  .little  general  use  of  it,  leaving  it  largely  to  the  priests. 
"At  that  time  Arabia  was  the  seat  of  a  cultured  state,  whose  mem- 
bers practiced  the  art  of  alphabetical  writing  and  had  extended  its 
power  from  the  extreme  south  of  the  peninsula  to  Edom  and  the 
borders  of  Palestine."  %  The  fact,  therefore,  that  Moses'  father-in- 
law  was  a  priest  of  Midian  acquires  through  this  new  information 
an  extraordinary  interest ;  especially  as  the  early  rulers  on  the 
Arabian  peninsula  were  themselves  priests. 

In  the  life  of  Joseph  we  find  an  unusual  number  of  points  of  con- 
tact with  the  period  in  which  he  lived.  Critics  who  dispute  so  early 
an  origin  for  Genesis  as  the  Mosaic  epoch  are  inclined  to  make  the 
most  of  the  argument  from  silence  and  to  put  a  disproportionate 
emphasis  on  certain  data  hitherto  but  imperfectly  explained.  Un- 
doubtedly the  judgment  of  Brugsch  voices  that  of  the  great  ma- 
jority of  competent  Egyptian  scholars.  "  It  was  long  ago  noted,"  he 
says,  "  and  looked  upon  as  a  complete  confirmation  of  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  Biblical  record  that  the  individual  features  of  it,  as  far 
as  they  refer  to  the  relations  of  Joseph  to  the  Pharaoh  of  his  time 

*Strack,  Com.,  in  loco,;  but  see  to  the  contrary,  Konig,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T. 
p.  178. 

f  Isaac  Taylor,  History  of  the  Alphabet.  Cf.  Glaser,  Neue  kirchliche  Zeit- 
ichrift,  1890,  No.  1. 

X  See  articles  by  Prof.  Sayce,  in  S.  S.  Times,  and  in  the  Academy,  Dec.  9,  1893. 


628  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

and  to  the  court  life  of  the  period,  are  thorougUy  in  harmony  witTi 
the  declarations  of  the  monuments."  *  "  The  outward  details  of  life, 
the  officers  of  the  court,  the  traffic  in  slaves,  the  visits  for  corn,  are 
all  pictured  on  temple  walls  and  stone  slabs."  f 

It  is  to  be  assumed,  with  most,  that  it  was  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
reign  of  the  Hyksos,  or  shepherd  kings,  that  the  events  recorded 
occurred.  X  The  caravan  which  bore  Joseph  to  Egypt  traded  in 
spicery,  balm  and  myrrh,  characteristic  articles  from  Canaan  and 
Syria,  and  notably  mentioned  as  such  on  the  papyri.  Joseph  is  sold 
to  Potiphar,  who  is  more  than  once  named  as,  an  Egyptian,  as  if  to 
distinguish  him  from  the  foreign  conquerors  of  the  country.  His 
name,  too,  is  confessedly  that  of  a  native.  The  Hebrew  captive 
soon  becomes  a  trusted  servant  in  the  house  of  his  master,  a  sort  of 
major  domo^  a  thoroughly  Egyptian  institution.  Through  no  fault 
of  his,  he  incurs  the  resentment  of  his  master's  wife.  A  story  quite 
analogous  to  this  in  many  of  its  details  has  been  discovered  in  the 
famous  Orbiney  papyrus,  entitled  The  Two  Brothers.  Joseph  is 
thrown  into  a  prison,  to  which  is  given  a  characteristic  Egyptian 
name.  The  dreams  of  two  of  his  fellow-prisoners,  former  ofl&cials 
under  Pharaoh,  both  in  their  essential  character  and  in  the  interest 
they  excite,  are  wholly  in  accord  with  supposed  circumstances  of 
the  story.  In  Joseph's  interpretation  of  the  dreams,  tli,e  introduc- 
tion of  wine  as  in  use  by  the  king,  the  recognition  of  the  custom  of 
carrying  burdens  on  the  head  and  that  of  decapitation  with  subse- 
quent impaling  as  a  punishment,  are  one  and  all  in  harmony  with 
what  we  know  from  other  sources  was  then  true  in  Egypt.§  The 
chief  butler  was  restored  to  favor  at  a  feast  on  Pharaoh's  birth- 
day. The  Eosetta  stone  informs  us  that  as  late  as  Ptolemy  Epiph- 
anes  this  day  was  set  apart  as  a  holiday  and  was  observed  as  an 
occasion  of  great  rejoicing. 

In  Pharaoh's  dream,  in  turn,  no  one  would  think  of  calling  in 
question  the  relevancy  of  its  surroundings.  "The  river,"  so-called, 
without  a  more  definite  name,  as  though  one  could  not  be  mistaken 
in  what  was  meant ;  the  seven  kine  feeding  in  the  sedge  grass  ;  the 
seven-eared  wheat;  the  consultation  with  magicians,  are,  every 
one,  simple  and  natural  touches  of  local  coloring,  as  unaffected  as 
they  are  picturesque.  And  when  Joseph  is  hurried  in  from  prison 
to  act  as  interpreter,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  "  he  shaved  him- 
self and  changed  his  raiment,"  shaving  being  as  essential  to  an  Bgyp- 

*  Steinschrift  und  Bibelwort  (1891),  p.  80.   Cf.  Tompkins,  Life  and  Times  of 
Joseph  (1891),  pp.  40-92. 
f  St.  Clair,  Buried  Cities  and  Bible  Countries,  p.  49. 
:}:Brug8cli,  Egypt  under  tlie  Pharaohs  (1891),  p.  120. 
§  See  Harper,  The  Bible  and  Modern  Discoveries  (1891),  p.  45. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  629 

tian  as  it  was  an  abomination  to  a  Shemite.  The  Egyptian  artists 
uniformly  represent  a  person  in  low  station  as  wearing  a  beard.  So 
the  pleasure  and  gratitude  shown  by  Pharaoh  at  the  explanation  of 
his  dream  are  presented  in  a  costume  of  expressions  and  ideas,  as  the 
most  competent  Egyptian  scholars  inform  us,  that  is  throughout  an- 
tique Egyptian.  The  signet  ring,  the  robe  of  fine  linen,  the  collar 
of  gold,  the  Egyptian  name  selected  for  the  honored  benefactor,  the 
additional  titles  of  "father  "  and  "lord,"  especially  the  permission  to 
ride  in  a  royal  chariot  and  to  be  second  to  the  king,  are  wholly  in 
character  and  to  be  expected  from  an  intelligent  contemporary 
writer.  The  same  is  true  of  many  subsequent  details  of  the  nar- 
rative. How  changed  the  scenes  to  which  Joseph's  life  and  ad- 
ministration as  governor  of  Egypt  introduce  us  from  tha^t  with 
which  we  are  familiar  in  the  history  of  the  patriarchs  !  But  the 
spirit  of  the  narrative  and  its  transparent  artlessness  remain  un- 
changed. A  seven  years'  famine  may  be  rare  along  the  banks  of 
the  Nile;  it  is  not  unprecedented.*  When  the  transfer  to  the 
Pharaohs  of  the  ownership  of  the  soil  occurred  we  are  not  told  out- 
side the  Bible,  though  the  fact  is  recognized  in  the  inscriptions  as 
well  as  a  time  when  it  was  not  the  case.  It  had  already  taken  place 
in  the  period  of  the  Rameses.  To  this  day,  in  case  of  scarcity,  the 
inhabitants  of  southern  Palestine  go  down  to  Egypt  to  purchase 
corn. 

Mr.  Flinders  Petrie  has  discovered  that  the  custom  obtained  under 
the  Hyksos  kings  of  ruling  through  a  series  of  viziers,  who  bearing 
the  king's  seal  acted  for  him  with  respect  to  the  treasury  and 
taxes,  royal  edicts  and  official  doouments.f  That  the  grand  vizier 
should  charge  the  incoming  strangers  with  being  spies,  considering 
what  the  political  relations  of  the  peoples  actually  were,  is  not 
strange.  Almost  an  exact  parallel  has  come  to  light  in  an  old 
papyrus:  "Who,"  says  an  Egyptian  official,  "who  sent  thee  here 
to  this  city  of  the  South?     How  hast  thou  come  to  spy  out?":}: 

"  By  the  life  of  Pharaoh,"  was  a  common  form  of  Egj'-ptian  oath. 
Divination  by  cups  in  ancient  Egypt  is  an  indisputable  fact ;  so 
too  the  custom  of  employing  an  interpreter  at  court.  In  the  tab- 
lets recently  recovered  at  Tel  el-Amarna,  dated  between  the  time  of 
Joseph  and  the  Exodus,  it  is  noted  that  an  interpreter  is  sent  from 
Mesopotamia  into  Egypt,  and  he  bears  the  nearly  Biblical  title  of 

*Brugsch,  ibid.,  p.  121,  cites  an  ancient  inscription  which  runs  :  "I  collected 
corn  as  a  friend  of  the  harvest  god.  I  was  watchful  at  the  time  of  sowing.  A^nd 
•when  famine  arose,  lasting  many  years,  I  distributed  corn  to  the  city  each  year 
of  famine." 

t  Cf.  St.  Clair,  Buried  Cities,  p.  60. 

};  Tompkins  ibid.,  p.   62. 


630  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

targumanu,  that  is  the  modern  dragoman.  The  use  of  wagons  for 
transportation  in  the  time  of  Joseph  is  no  anachronism.  In  the 
advice  which  he  gives  to  his  brethren,  to  tell  Pharaoh  that  they  are 
shepherds,  assuming  that  it  is  the  period  of  the  Hyksos  supremacy, 
there  is  a  striking  coincidence  worth  observing.  While  shepherds 
were  an  abomination  to  the  Egyptians,  they  need  not  have  been, 
and  seem  not  to  have  been,  to  Pharaoh,  who  was  not  properly  an 
Egyptian.  He  accepts  accordingly  their  prearranged  plan  and  even 
suggests  that  Joseph's  brethren  have  the  care  of  the  royal  herds.* 
The  limits  of  ancient  Goshen  are  no  longer  known.  The  Bible 
places  it  in  the  land  of  Rameses.  Rameses,  or  Ramses,  was  the  title 
given  to  Zoan,  or  Tanis,  by  Rameses  II.  Tanis  was  the  capital  of 
the  Hyksos  empire.  From  the  story  itself  we  would  gather  that 
the  palace  of  Joseph  was  not  so  very  far  from  the  home  of  his  family. 
The  land  of  Goshen  was  fertile ;  and,  what  perhaps  was  of  equal 
importance  to  the  Hebrews,  the  way  from  it  back  to  Palestine  was 
comparatively  open.  Here  Jacob  died,  was  embalmed  and  bewailed 
after  the  Egyptian  fashion,  and  was  carried  to  his  burial  in  the  distant 
Hebron  from  the  Egyptian  Zoan  by  a  mixed  company  of  his  family 
and  the  servants  of  Pharaoh.  "  We  can  therefore  understand,"  says 
Sayce,  "  why  Zoan  and  Hebron  are  brought  into  such  close  relation 
in  the  well-known  passage  in  Numbers  (xiii.  22),  where  it  is  said 
that  Hebron  was  built  seven  years  before  Zoan  in  Egypt.  Hebron 
and  Zoan  were  the  two  points  around  which  centred  the  patri- 
archal history  which  is  set  before  us  in  the  Book  of  Genesis."  f 

Such  are  some  of  the  marks  of  chronological  unity  and  harmony 
in  the  Biblical  life  of  Joseph  which  closes  the  historical  narratives  of 
Genesis.  We  are  not  yet  ready  for  our  final  conclusion.  One  class 
of  facts  only  has  thus  far  been  noted.  But  we  already  get  some  idea 
of  the  direction  in  which  the  facts  uniformly  tend.  A  distinguished 
German  professor,  in  a  recent  introduction  to  the  Old  Testament, 
has  asked  the  question : :};  "  Can  one  maintain  that  the  references  of 
the  Pentateuch  to  Egypt  may  not  be  explained  as  the  product  of  a 
tradition  running  back  to  the  times  of  Moses,  accompanied  and 
revived  by  a  later  knowledge  of  Egyptian  matters  ?  "  We  have 
made  no  effort  to  exhaust  the  references  to  Egypt  occurring  even  in 
the  Book  of  Genesis  ;  but  it  is  clear  that  they  are  not  of  the  kind  to 
which  our  professor  refers.  The  most  of  them  are  not  of  a  nature 
to  be  transmitted  by  oral  tradition  through  many  centuries.     Ac- 

*  "The  Egyptian  contempt  for  herdsmen  appears  plainly  on  the  monu- 
ments, where  they  are  commonly  represented  as  dirty  and  unshaven,  and  are 
sometimes  caricatured  as  a  deformed  and  unseemly  race."     St.  Clair,  ibid.,  p.  51. 

\  Fresh  Lights,  etc.,  p.  54. 

X  Edouard  Konig,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (1893),  p.  159. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  631 

quaintance  with  the  great  outlying  facts  of  Egyptian  history,  and 
some  general  knowledge  of  the  mode  of  life  there  in  ancient  times, 
may  be  safely  predicated,  perhaps,  of  the  leading  men  in  Israel  in  all 
periods.  The  information  required  to  write  Genesis  in  its  present 
form  is  of  quite  a  different  sort.  If  there  could  have  been  a  desire, 
there  was  neither  the  archaeological  information  nor  the  literary 
skill  among  Hebrew  writers  of  the  time  of  Joash  and  Amaziah, 
much  less  of  the  time  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  to  fit  them  to  write 
into  such  a  history  the  numerous  and  often  obscnre  allusions  to  the 
coexisting  customs  and  events  it  contains.  They  are  indisputably, 
to  a  great  extent,  the  purely  incidental  coloring,  undesigned  coinci- 
dences, of  a  contemporary  writer.  * 

In  pursuing  the  subject  of  the  bearing  of  the  material  of  Genesis 
on  the  age  of  its  composition,  we  pass  to  its  genealogical  and  ethno- 
graphical matter.  It  is  one  of  its  most  marked  and  familiar  feat- 
tures,  and  is  mostly  assigned  to  one  of  the  supposed  documents — P, 
dated,  it  will  be  remembered,  in  the  time  of  the  exile.  Do  the  facts 
justify  this  conclusion?  The  Hebrews  were  not  at  all  peculiar 
among  Shemitic  peoples  in  the  great  attention  which  they  paid  to 
genealogies.  And  outside  of  Shemitic  races,  it  was  also,  if  not 
equally,  characteristic  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  and  Greeks.  If  the 
human  race  started,  as  the  Bible  represents,  with  a  single  family  as 
the  unit  of  society,  we  should  not  be  surprised  that  family  records 
occupy  so  large  a  space  in  the  brief  history  of  the  antediluvian  and 
postdiluvian  worlds  before  Abraham.     After  Abraham  it  was  still 

*  The  claim  that  the  Egyptian  name  of  Joseph  and  the  word  Poti-phera  are 
not  reflected  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  until  the  seventh  century  B.C.  is  well 
set  forth  in  The  Biblical  World  for  October,  1893,  in  an  interesting  article  by 
Dr.  Coburn,  commending  to  American  readers  Dr.  Steindorfl''s  identification  of 
Zaphenath-paneah,  Asenath  and  Poti-phera  (Gen.  xli;  45,  50;  xlvi;  20)  with 
Egyptian  names  of  a  late  period.  This  article  intimates  confidently  that  this 
identification  offers  a  new  and  conclusive  proof  that  Joseph  and  his  relatives 
could  not  really  have  borne  such  names  as  the  Bible  gives  them,  and  therefore 
that  the  passages  in  which  the  misstatements  appear  must  have  been  written  not 
earlier  than  930  B.C.,  and  most  probably  in  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  when 
such  names  became  common. 

This  suggestion  is  not  a  startlingly  new  one.  It  has  been  four  yea/^or  more 
since  Dr.  Steindorff  openly  published  it  in  the  ZeitschriftfurjEgyptischeSprache, 
and  it  has  been  often  referred  to  since  in  German  and  American  reviews.  That 
the  discussion  has  been  of  any  great  significance  in  settling  the  date  of  Genesis 
it  is  diflicult  to  believe  for  various  reasons: 

1.  Divergent  views  have  been  and  are  yet  held  by  competent  Egyptologists 
as  to  what  hieroglyphic  groups  exactly  correspond  to  the  names  given  above. 
Other  groups  than  those  preferred  by  Dr.  Steindorff  have  been  declared  by  dis- 
tinguislied  Egyptologists  to  answer  "  letter  for  letter  "  to  these  Hebrew  names. 

2.  Since  the  publication  of  Dr.  Steindorff's  views,  it  has  been  stated  by  high 
authority  that  the  very  groups  which  have  been  selected  by  him  as  exactly  cor- 
responding to  the  names  in  Genesis  can  be  read  upon  monuments  which  are  as 


632  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

more  to  be  expected.  With  him  began  the  development  of  a  chosen 
people  from  a  chosen  family.  Its  separation  from  other  peoples,  its 
assignment  to  a  particular  land,  its  orderly  occupation  of  the  same, 
above  all  its  hereditary  priesthood  and  the  law  governing  its  succes- 
sion of  kings,  required  a  strict  adherence  to  the  lines  of  family  descent. 
Genealogical  registers  are  strictly  in  place  in  Genesis.  Is  there 
any  positive  evidence,  or  any  likelihood,  that  those  found  there  are 
of  post -Mosaic  origin?  On  many  grounds  the  contrary  can  be  suc- 
cessfully maintained.  If  any  of  these  lists  needed  to  be  transmitted 
orally  for  a  considerable  period — a  position  which  is  incapable  of 
proof* — it  is  at  most  the  short  ones  recorded  in  chaps,  iv  and  v, 
referring  to  antediluvian  personages.  The  rest,  including  the  nume- 
rous descendants  of  Noah  (vi.  10),  and  his  sons  (chaps,  x,  xi),  of  Abra- 
ham's father  (xi.  27),  and  brother  Nahor  (xxii.  21-24),  of  Abraham 
himself  by  Keturah  (xxv.  1-4),  and  through  Ishmael  (xxv.  12-16)^ 
of  Esau  (chap,  xxxvi)  and  of  Jacob  (xxxvi.  23-26,  xlv.  8-25), 
might  easily  have  been  committed  to  tablets  at  once  and,  even  in 
Abraham's  time,  as  we  have  seen,  written  in  alphabetic  characters. 
For  the  out-and-out  fabrication  of  such  records,  did  the  nature  of  the 
case  permit,  every  sufficient  motive  is  wanting.  That  they  are 
complete,  that  they  retain  in  every  respect  their  original  form,  or 
that  they  can  now  be  perfectly  restored  or  explained,  nobody  would 

old  as  the  era  of  Joseph.     This  indeed  seems  to  be  granted  in  the  case  of  Asenath 
by  the  writer  of  the  paper  in  the  issue  of  The  Biblical  World  referred  to. 

3.  Granting  that  the  names  given  by  Dr.  Steindorff  are  exact  equivalents  of 
the  Hebrew  names,  and  granting  also  that  they  have  never  been  found  on  any 
monument  earlier  than  the  tenth  to  seventh  century  B.C.;  yet  to  infer  from 
this  that  the  book  of  Genesis  was  not  written  until  the  seventh  century  befoi'e 
our  era,  would  seem  to  be  a  conclusion  more  generous  than  just. 

These  names  may  have  been  twenty-sixth  dynasty  explanations  or  translations 
of  twelfth  dynasty  forms,  just  as  "  Salvatorem  Mundi"  was  the  fourth  century 
translation  of  one  of  those  very  names  given  by  St.  Jerome  in  the  Vulgate. 

Again,  the  Egyptian  literature  is  confessedly  fragmentary,  and  an  Egyptolo- 
gist must  be  of  very  sanguine  spirit  who  can  argue  with  confidence  that  because 
those  names  have  not  been  found  on  any  recovered  monument  earlier  than  the 
twenty-second  dynasty,  therefore  they  were  never  used  in  Egypt  previous  to 
that  date.  If  our  Bible  were  torn  in  pieces  and  scattered  to  the  four  winds  it  would 
appear  no  bashful  assumption  if  some  foreigner,  after  examining  a  handful  of 
leaves  which  he  had  succeeded  in  finding,  should  afiirm  that  it  was  now  settled 
that  no  man  by  the  name  of  Joseph  was  ever  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  or  Chris- 
tian Scriptures,  for  no  such  name  could  be  read  on  any  of  the  fragments  in  his 
possession. 

See,  also,  Tompkins  Life  and  Times  of  Joseph,  Appendix  B. 

Note  an  analogy  in  the  Egyptian  word  for  Oasis,  wJiat.  It  is  found  in  monu- 
ments belonging  to  the  sixth  dynasty  and  not  again  for  2000  years  1  See  PrO" 
ceeding  of  the  Soc.for  Bib.  Arch.,  Vol.  xvi,  24th  session,  pp.  50,  51. 

*  See  Lenormant,  Beginnings  of  History  (Brown's  Translation,  1882),  p.  387. 
Hasisatra  (the  Babylonian  Noah)  is  bidden  to  bury  in  Sippara  all  that  had  been 
consigned  to  writing  before  his  day. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  633 

attempt  to  prove.  But  that  they  are,  in  the  main,  genuine,  quite 
germane  to  the  history,  and  stand  like  so  many  granite  pillars  under 
the  literary  and  ethical  structure  of  Genesis,  cannot  well  be  doubted. 

They  may  be  considered  from  two  points  of  view,  that  of  Genesis 
and  their  own  immediate  context,  and  that  of  Chronicles  where 
they  are  massed  together  with  many  others  from  various  periods. 
The  genealogy  of  Cain  (iv.  17-21)  has  but  six  links,  and  noticeably 
breaks  off  with  the  murderer  Lamech  and  his  family,  as  it  began 
with  the  murderer  Cain,  There  is  nothing  in  the  number,  names, 
or  character  of  Cain's  descendants  to  stamp  the  section  in  which 
they  are  found  as  ungenuine.  That  there  was  other  posterity  of 
Adam  before  the  birth  of  Seth  is  implied  in  the  context  (iv.  14, 17). 
That  they  are  not  more  particularly  referred 'to  is,  apparently, 
because  their  lives  offered  nothing  worthy  of  note  in  a  history  so 
exceedingly  pragmatical.  A  somewhat  advanced  civilization  is 
foreshadowed  in  connection  with  Jubal  and  Tubal-cain,  who  are  the 
latest  descendants  of  Cain  introduced.  One  is  called  the  "father" 
of  those  handling  the  harp  and  shepherd's  pipe  (not  "  the  organ  ") ; 
the  other,  the  "  father  "  of  workers  in  copper  and  iron.  The  passage 
has  been  challenged  as  an  anachronism  ;  but  from  the  point  of  view 
of  ancient  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  art,  or  even  that  of  the  ark 
itself,  unjustly. 

The  main  line  of  the  genealogy  of  Adam,  ending  with  Noah,  is 
found  in  tJie  fifth  chapter.  It  has  some  noticeable  characteristics 
which  it  shares  with  that  of  Shem  (xi.  10-26).  Each  is  made  up 
of  ten  names,  and  in  each  we  are  told  how  old  a  person  was  before 
having  a  "  son  "  and  how  long  he  lived  afterwards.  In  this  respect, 
these  two  lists  are  absolutely  unique.  The  round  number  and  this 
peculiar  form,  among  other  things,  suggest  that  the  lists  are  meant 
to  be  representative  rather  than  exhaustive.  That  the  first  child 
named  is  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  in  every  case  the  first  born  of  his 
parents  is  clear  from  the  context  (v.  3;  cf.  iv.  17,  25).  Seth  was 
not  actually  the  first  born  of  Adam.  He  had  had,  it  would  appear, 
several  other  children.  The  same  may  be  true  in  the  other  cases. 
Such  a  conclusion  is  made  the  more  certain  by  the  length  of  time 
elapsing  before  the  birth  of  a  son  is  recorded  ;  in  one  case,  105  years, 
in  another  162,  and  in  still  another  187  years. 

Still  further,  if  we  are  guided  by  the  analogy  of  other  Biblical 
genealogies,  not  excepting  that  of  our  Lord  in  the  Gospels,  and  a  quite 
general  Biblical  usage,  we  may  not  assume  that  the  word  "  son  "  as 
used  here  means,  in  many  cases — how  many  we  know  not — anything 
more  than  descendant.  The  term  "  son  "  has  from  time  immemorial 
been  used  throughout  the  East  to  denote  connection  by  succession 
as  well  as  by  descent.     Hence  "the  succession  of  generations  here- 


634  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

may  represent  the  succession  to  such,  and  such  an  inheritance  or 
headship  of  tribe  or  family,  rather  than  the  relationship  of  father 
and  son."*  It  has  been  usual  to  infer,  it  is  true,  that  the  author  of 
Genesis  meant  by  the  peculiar  form  which  he  gave  these  two  lists 
of  patriarchs  to  indicate  the  exact  chronology  of  the  period  they 
cover.  Such  an  inference  is  wholly  unwarranted.  If  the  writer's 
object  had  been  to  make  a  hard  and  fast  chronology  of  those  times 
there  should  be  direct  indication  of  it.  There  is  none  whatever. 
No  chronology  is  either  attempted  or  by  word  or  sign  suggested  in 
the  Bible  at  this  point.  And  he  who  seeks  to  deduce  one  from  the 
indefinite  data  given  does  so  at  his  peril. 

When,  for  example,  it  is  said  that  Methusaleh,  in  his  187th 
year,  "  begat  "  Laoaech,  one  is  not  entitled  to  the  conclusion,  if  we 
are  governed  by  a  common  Biblical  usage,  either  that  Lamech  was 
the  first  child  born  to  Methusaleh,  or  that  he  was  immediately 
begotten  by  him.  One  may  have  been  begotten  from  whom  Lamech 
long  afterwards  sprang.  These  two  selected  lists  of  Genesis  were 
doubtless  given  for  some  other  purpose :  as,  for  instance,  to  preserve 
the  names  of  the  more  eminent  patriarchs  ;  to  show  to  what  extra- 
ordinary limits  certain  lives  attained  in  the  early  days ;  how  the 
years  of  human  life  gradually  diminished,  comparing  the  second  list 
with  the  first ;  and  also  in  a  general  way  to  trace,  for  the  purposes 
of  history,  the  lines  of  family  descent.  The  charge,  accordingly, 
which  has  been  made  against  these  two  genealogies  that  they  can- 
not be  authentic  since  they  are  out  of  harmony  with  what  we 
already  know  of  the  age  of  man  on  the  earth,  is  clearly  invalid. 

Another  fact  which  is  supposed  to  have  an  important  bearing  on 
the  data  of  these  genealogies  of  Adam  and  of  Shem  is  a  grammati- 
cal form  almost  peculiar  to  them  in  Genesis  (found  also  vi.  10,  xvii. 
20,  XXV.  19,  xlviii.  6).  It  is  the  Hiphil  of  the  word  ^^yaladh  "  in 
the  sense  of  "  beget "  for  which  elsewhere  in  Genesis  the  Qal  is 
found.  It  is  claimed  that  the  Hiphil^  in  this  sense,  arose  at  a  late 
period  and  so  stamps  the  matter  where  it  is  found  as  itself  late. 
The  claim,  however,  that  the  form  is  of  late  origin  must  be  first 
made  good  before  one  will  be  entitled  to  the  conclusion.  This  will 
be  found  a  more  difi&cult  task  than  might  be  supposed.  The  Hiphil 
may  have  arisen,  historically  and  grammatically  speaking,  after  the 
other  in  the  sense  used,  and  still  synchronize  with  it  perfectly  as 
far  as  the  Biblical  books  are  concerned.  It  is  used,  it  is  true,  in  the 
sense  of  "  beget "  in  these  tables  and,  to  some  extent,  elsewhere ;  but 
this  meaning  is  not  uniform  for  the  Hiphil  throughout  the  Bible. 
It  also  has  the  meaning  "conceive"  (Isa.  lix.  4)  and  "cause  to 
bring  forth "  (Isa.  Iv.  10,  Ixvi.  9) ;  while  its  proper  passive,  the 

*  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  2d  ed.,  s.v.  "Genealogy." 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  635 

Eophal^  is  found  once  with  the  meaning  of  "  birthday  "  (Gen.  xl. 
20)  and  twice  with  that  of  "  be  born  "  (Ezek.  xvi.  4,  5),  In  fact 
there  is  given  no  other  meaning  for  the  Hophal  in  the  Bible  than 
"  be  born."  Again  it  is  important  to  compare  the  relative  use  and 
distribution  of  the  Qal  and  the  Eiphil.  The  Qal  occurs  outside  of 
Genesis  and  the  Chronicles  in  Deuteronomy  (xxxii.  8),  Job  (xxxviii. 
28),  the  Psalms  (ii.  7),  the  Proverbs  (xvii.  21,  xxiii.  22,  24),  Zech- 
ariah  (xiii.  3,  of  both  parents),  Daniel  (xi.  6).  This  by  no  means 
suggests  the  dying  out  of  the  form.  The  Hiphil,  within  the  same 
limits,  is  found  in  Judges  (1),  Ruth  (5),  2  Kings  (1),  Job  (1),  Eccle- 
siastes  (1),  Isaiah  (1),  Jeremiah  (1),  Ezekiel  (3)  and  Nehemiah  (2).* 
This,  on  the  other  hand,  does  not  show  any  marked  growth  in  the 
use  of  the  word  during  Biblical  times.  If  now  we  turn  to  1  Chron- 
icles, where  the  tables  of  Genesis  are  massed  together  with  other 
genealogies,  we  should  expect  to  find,  were  the  theory  of  our  critics 
true,  the  Chronicler  showing  a  preference  for  the  Hiphil  form  in 
this  sense.  For  the  most  part,  however,  he  simply  repeats  the 
respective  names  without  any  connective  whatever  (1  Chron.  i.  1- 
14,  17-28).  When  he  has  occasion  to  use  either  form  he  employs 
the  one  found  in  Genesis  (1  Chron.  i.  18),  betraying  in  this  respect 
no  liking  for  one  above  the  other.  Moreover,  the  form  in  which 
the  genealogical  lists  of  Genesis  are  reproduced  in  1  Chronicles  im- 
plies that  they  were  before  the  Chronicler  as  originals,  as  they 
now  appear  in  Genesis.  He  not  only  takes  them  up  in  the  same 
order,  while  condensing  and  shortening  them,  as  might  be  expected 
from  the  evident  purpose  of  his  work,  but  he  keeps  them  within 
the  same  essential  limits.  The  list  of  chap.  v.  of  Genesis,  for  ex- 
ample, is  compressed  into  a  single  verse  in  Chronicles,  and  that  of 
chap,  xi  (vers.  10-27)  into  three  verses;  but  the  exact  names  are 
there  and  no  others,  while  between  them,  as  in  Genesis,  is  inserted 
the  catalogue  of  the  nations  recorded  in  the  tenth  chapter.  And 
when,  in  this  way,  the  Chronicler  has  exhausted  the  various  family 
registers  of  Genesis,  he  takes  up,  almost  immediately,  the  line  of 
David  as  found  in  the  book  of  Ruth.f 

For  these  reasons  we  cannot  accept  the  theory  of  a  late  date 

*  We  omit  passages  where  the  Hipldl  may  have  another  meaning. 

t  Konig  (Einleitung,  pp.  168,  229,  230)  seeks  to  break  the  force  of  the  argument 
from  the  relative  frequency  of  the  Qal  for  "beget  "  by  denying  its  pertinency 
in  certain  cases,  it  being  used,  he  says,  of  "sexually  indifferent  ''■subjects.  The 
objection  is  invalid.  Though  the  Qal  is  used  metaphorically  (Deut.  xxxii.  8  ; 
Job  xxxviii.  28),  it  is  not  used  with  a  sexually  indifferent  subject,  but  always  of 
the  male.  Only  one  of  the  passages  cited  by  Konig  under  this  head  is  ad  rem, 
the  proper  rendering  being  in  most  of  them  not  "beget,"  but  "bear,"  or,  at 
least,  doubtful.  He  says  further  that  the  Chronicler,  in  reproducing  the  tables 
of  Genesis,  has  omitted  in  some  instances  the  Qal  form.     It  is  true,  but  he  has 


636  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

for  the  two  genealogies  concerned  on  the  simple  ground  of  a 
diverse  grammatical  form.  The  most  that  can  fairly  be  inferred 
from  it  is  that  these  genealogies  had  a  different  origin  from  their 
immediate  context;  and  there  is  a  fact  hitherto  unnoticed  which 
renders  even  this  inference,  to  say  the  least,  doubtful.  The  same 
Hebrew  verb  yaladh^  which  has  two  actives,  a  Eiphil  and  a  Qal, 
each  rendered  "  beget,"  has  also  two  passive  forms,  a  Niphal  and  a 
Pual^^  each  rendered  he  born.  These  forms  are  almost  equally 
numerous,  one  being  used  twenty-eight,  the  other  thirty-six  times 
in  the  Bible  and  are  similarly  distributed  from  Genesis  to  Chron- 
icles. If,  accordingly,  the  former  are  held  to  represent  material  of 
different  origin  because,  being  different  forms,  they  are  translated  in 
the  same  way,  by  parity  of  reasoning  why  should  not  the  latter 
represent  material  of  different  origin  ?  Still  no  one  thinks  of  ap- 
plying the  principle  in  more  than  the  one  instance.f 

Looking  now  more  particularly  at  the  remaining  genealogies  of 
the  Book  of  Genesis,  there  seems  to  be  nothing  in  them  generally 
implying  a  late,  or  even  a  post-Mosaic  origin,  but  rather  the  contrary. 
For  instance,  a  census  of  the  house  of  Jacob  is  found  in  chap.  xlvi. 
If  we  compare  the  earlier  part  of  it  relating  to  Reuben,  Simon  and 
Levi,  with  a  passage  in  Exodus  (vi.  14-20),  where  the  tribe  of  Levi 
is  especially  in  view,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  material  in  the  latter 

also  omitted,  and  for  the  same  reason  it  would  appear, — for  brevity's  sake, — more 
than  an  equal  number  of  cases  of  the  Hi-pJiil  used  in  this  sense  in  Genesis  ;  in  fact, 
he  has  reproduced  but  one  of  its  many  occurrences.  Konig  again  adduces  as  evi- 
dence of  the  late  origin  of  the  HipMl  with  tlie  meaning  given,  the  statement  that 
when  the  Chronicler  is  not  quoting  but  writing  independently,  he  always  uses 
this  form.  When  we  consider  how  the  books  of  Chronicles  are  confessedly  made 
up,  how  the  Chronicler  came  by  the  major  part  of  his  matter,  especially  that  found 
in  his  numerous  genealogical  tables,  it  is  hazardous  to  affirm  that  he  ever  acts 
independently  in  the  thing  alleged.  It  would  have  been  more  to  the  point  to 
say,  for  it  would  be  true,  that  in  Chronicles  the  Hiphil  predominates  over  the 
Qal  in  this  sense.  This  is  most  likely  due  to  the  fact  of  the  more  frequent  use 
of  the  Hiphil  in  the  sources  from  which  he  made  his  extracts.  And  such  a  fact 
should  have  its  weight.  On  the  other  hand,  another  fact  should  also  be  given 
weight.  The  use  of  the  Hiphil  in  the  sense  noted  in  two  of  the  most  promi- 
nent of  the  patriarchal  registers  might  be  expected  to  have  great  influence 
on  its  use  in  the  later  books  without  reference  to  the  question  whether  it  were  a 
late  or  an  early  form.  In  the  same  manner,  the  use  of  the  Qal  in  subsequent 
literature,  if  not  in  precisely  the  same  degree,  the  form  being  less  pronounced 
and  determinate,  may  be  accounted  for. 

*Diestel's  theory  {Theolog.  Literatur  Zeitung,  1876,  Nr.  4),  that  the  original 
pointing  of  the  Qal  forms,  with  this  meaning,  made  them  Pi'els  is  worthy  of  at- 
tention, especially  as  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  with  two  exceptions  (Gen. 
X.  8,  xxii.  23),  treats  them  so.  But  the  position  is  beyond  proof  (cf.  also  in  the 
Hebrew  Prov.  xvii.  21),  and,  were  it  proved,  it  would  not  be  decisive  as 
respects  the  main  point  at  issue. 

fit  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  extended  and  exclusive  use  of  the  Hiphil 
(Gen.  V.  3-32,  xi.  10-26),  is  significant  in  its  case. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  637 

passage  has  received  considerable  additions  and  been  put,  meantime, 
into  a  more  formal  order.  The  same  thing,  that  is,  the  contempo- 
raneousness and  the  normal  growth  of  the  genealogies,  is  indicated 
bj  another  similar  fact.  A  census  was  taken  of  the  Israelites,  it  is 
said,  while  they  were  in  the  wilderness  (Num.,  chaps,  i-iii).  On  en- 
tering Canaan,  thirty-eight  years  afterward,  it  was  repeated,  and  the 
names  of  the  new  families  which  had  arisen  during  this  period  added 
(Num.,  chap,  xxvi).*  Such  facts  serve  to  corroborate,  and  all  the 
more  for  being  incidental,  the  genuineness  of  the  early  registers  of 
this  sort. 

But  we  are  pointed  to  one  circumstance  said  to  require  an  op- 
posite conclusion.  In  the  genealogy  of  Esau's  descendants  (chap, 
xxxvi)  we  read:  "And  these  are  the  kings  that  reigned  iu  the 
land  of  Edora,  before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of 
Israel."  The  names  of  eight  kings  follow,  beginning  with  "  Bela 
the  son  of  Beor,"  and  ending  with  a  certain  Hadar.  It  is  said  that 
the  reference  to  kings  as  reigning  over  Israel  implies  a  period 
as  late,  at  least,  as  that  of  Saul,  its  first  king.  The  inference  would 
be  the  more  stringent  if  there  had  been  no  thought  of  the  reign  of 
kings  over  Israel  and  no  direct  preparation  for  it  previous  to  and  for 
some  time  following  the  days  of  Esau.  It  is  quite  otherwise.  The 
promise  had  been  made  to  both  Abraham  and  Jacob  that  they 
should  be  the  progenitors  of  kings  (xvii.  6,  16,  xxxv.  11) ;  to  the 
latter,  in  the  chapter  immediately  preceding'the  one  we  are  consid- 
ering. Moses  is  said  in  Deuteronomy  (xvi.  14-20)  to  have  made  a 
law  in  the  wilderness  for  the  government  of  the  kings  of  Israel  when 
the  people  shall  have  entered  Canaan ;  and  another  passage  in  the 
same  book  represents  them  as  having  one  at  a  later  period  (Deut. 
xxviii.  36 ;  cf.  Num.  xxiii.  21).  Moses  himself  is  called  a  king  in  one 
place  (Deut.  xxxiii.  5).  How  warmly  the  Israelites  cherished  the  idea 
of  an  earthly  sovereign  appears  from  their  efforts  to  induce  Gideon  to 
become  their  king  (Jude  viii.  22).  And  when  in  the  time  of  Samuel 
they  used  their  best  persuasions  to  induce  that  prophet  to  give  them  a 
king  to  judge  them  "  like  all  the  nations,"  their  language  is  sigcally 
colored  by  that  of  the  law  for  the  king  in  Deuteronomy  (1  Sam.  viii. 
5).  Again,  the  list  of  eight  Edomitish  kings  named  in  our  passage 
would  be  no  anachronism  in  the  pre-Mosaic  period.  As  far  as  the 
time  needed  for  them  is  concerned,  it  is  ample,  with  many  years  to 
spare.  There  are  several  reasons  why  they  are  in  place  there.  We 
note  first  that  the  genealogical  material,  in  the  midst  of  which  the 
list  is  found,  bears  marks  of  gradual  enlargement  from  an  original 
form.  We  are  told  in  the  beginning  of  the  sons  born  to  Esau  in 
Canaan  (xxxvi.  1-5) ;  then  of  the  sons  of  these  sons,  to  the  second 

*See  Smith's  Bible  Diet.  s.  v.  "Genealogy." 


638  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

generation  from  Esau,  born  to  him  in  Edom  (xxxvi.  6-19),  some  of 
whom  became  dukes,  that  is,  family  chiefs,  or  nobles.  And  finally 
we  are  informed  of  certain  other  descendants  of  Esau,  eleven  in  num- 
ber, who  were  also  dukes  (xxxvi.  40-43),  without  a  word  to  indi- 
cate their  immediate  origin  or  date.  With  such  literary  indica- 
tions there  is  no  demand  in  our  chapter  for  a  long  stretch  of  time 
subsequent  to  Esau.  It  is  rather  excluded.  Further,  along  with 
these  lists  of  Esau's  descendants  there  is  given  in  the  same  chapter 
a  catalogue  of  the  original  Horite  settlers  with  their  family  heads 
or  dukes.  Now,  since  we  learn  from  Deuteronomy  (ii.  12,  22)  that 
these  Horites  are  those  whom  Esau  destroyed  and  succeeded,  their 
names  carry  us  back  in  part,  at  least,  to  a  period  before  rather  than 
after  his  day. 

Again,  inasmuch  as  the  first  class  of  dukes  or  subordinate  rulers- 
named  dates  from  the  second  generation  after  Esau,  it  is  fair  to 
conclude  that  the  line  of  kings  also  did,  whose  electors  they  may 
well  have  been.  That  the  dukes  and  kings  had  not  the  same  rank 
and  did  not  rule  successively  is  clear,  not  only  from  their  different 
titles,  but  from  Ex.  xv.  15,  when  compared  with  Num.  xx.  14, 
where  they  are  treated  as  contemporaneous.  Still  further,  the  form 
of  the  list  in  which  kings  appear  and  the  historic  statements  con- 
nected with  it,  furnish  strong,  if  indirect,  evidence  that  they  lived 
before  Moses.  The  list  is  unelastic  and  it  would  appear  strictly 
inclusive  of  all  the  Edomitish  rulers  of  the  period  under  review,  it 
being  stated  that  each  succeeding  king  reigned  in  the  last  one's 
stead.*  Of  the  fourth  king  it  is  remarked  that  he  "  smote  Midian 
in  the  field  of  Moab."  Midian,  as  a  people,  ceased  to  exist  at  about 
the  time  of  Gideon  (Num.  xxi.  20 ;  Ruth  i.  1). 

The  time  between  Gideon  and  Saul,  if  we  make  that  the  terminus 
ad  quem^  is  too  short  for  the  four  remaining  kings.  Much  later  it 
cannot  be,  since  in  the  time  of  David  the  independence  of  Edom  and 
the  continuity  of  its  line  of  sovereigns  ceased. 

Another  marked  indication  of  time  is  the  manner  in  which  the 
last  king  is  spoken  of.  In  every  other  case  we  are  told  of  the  death 
of  the  king.  In  this  case  not  only  is  nothing  said  of  that,  but  the 
family  of  his  wife  is  somewhat  circumstantially  described.  For  this 
reason  it  has  seemed  to  many,  and  the  inference  is  a  natural  one, 
that  the  last  king  of  the  line  was  in  power  at  the  time  of  the  writer, 
who  gives  the  list.  And  since  there  was  an  Edomitish  king  in 
power  at  the  period  of  the  Exodus  (Num.  xx.  14 ;  Jude  xi.  17),  the 
query  of  Delitzsch  seems  reasonable  whether  the  last  name  in  our 
list  is  not  that  of  the  king  who  refused  to  let  the  Israelites  pass 

*  The  kings  being  elective  and  not  hereditary,  it  does  not  surprise  us  that  they 
are  not  more  closely  identified  with  the  family  of  Esau. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  639 

through  his  land  when  on  their  way  to  Canaan.     Be  that  as  it  may 
there  is  no  occasion  for  placing  him  subsequent  to  the  Exodus. 

But  what,  it  might  be  asked,  was  the  purpose  of  the  writer  of 
Genesis  in  giving  this  catalogue  of  foreign  sovereigns  in  this  place  ? 
His  method  elsewhere  furnishes  the  answer.  He  had  shown  in  the 
case  of  Cain  and  of  Ishmael  that  while  the  worldly  line  had  started 
off  quite  in  advance  of  the  line  of  promise  in  the  rapidity  of  its 
development,  it  had  later  been  overtaken  and  outstripped ;  the 
same,  accordingly,  might  be  expected  here.  The  line  of  Esau  comes 
early  to  its  bloom,  but  that  of  Jacob  inherits  the  promises.* 

As  already  suggested,  along  with  the  genealogical  matter  of 
Genesis  there  is  associated  not  a  little  ethnographical  matter.  That 
is  perhaps  the  proper  term  for  it  rather  than  ethnological.f  No 
attempt  is  made  in  Genesis,  strictly  speaking,  to  give  an  account  of 
the  various  races  of  the  world ;  but  in  its  tenth  chapter  there  is  a 
most  remarkable  conspectus  of  the  descendants  of  Noah  settled  within 
a  certain  geographical  area.  It  is  a  well-known  idiom  of  Hebrew 
to  speak  of  a  people  as  the  product  of  the  country  where  it  is  found. 
A  great  city  like  Jerusalem,  for  example,  was  looked  upon  as  the 
mother  of  its  inhabitants.  So  here,  the  peoples  grouped  around 
Canaan  are  treated  as  though  they  had  sprung  from  the  several 
countries  where  they  are  found.  When  it  is  said,  accordingly,  that 
Canaan  "  begat "  Zidon  and  Heth,  a  geographical  rather  than  a 
strictly  genealogical  connection  is  referred  to.  So  the  three  sons  of 
Noah,  being  assigned  to  different  localities,  Japheth  to  the  north. 
Ham  to  the  south  and  Shem  to  the  interior,  the  inhabitants  occupy- 
ing these  localities  at  the  time  are  looked  upon  as  their  descendants. 
In  a  general  way  this  may  also  be  true ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten 
that  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer  is  geographical  and  political  and 
not  severely  racial.  Hence  it  follows  that  Egyptian  and  Canaanite, 
Elamite  and  Assyrian  are  classed  together  as  though  descendants 
from  one  ancestor. :}: 

I  have  called  the  contents  of  the  tenth  chapter  remarkable.  They 
are  so  in  many  respects.  The  literatures  of  other  nations  contain 
lists  of  foreign  peoples;  but  they  are  those  whom  they  have  subju- 
gated. Their  preservation  is  a  mark  of  national  pride.  This  one, 
on  the  contrary,  is  evidence  of  the  universality  of  Israel's  outlook. 

*The  fact  that  there  was  a  certain  Edomitish  Hadad  ("Hadar"?)  of  royal 
blood  living  in  the  time  of  Solomon  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Hadad  who 
closes  the  list  of  kings  of  the  period  of  Esau.  The  former  married  a  daughter 
of  Pharaoh  and  never  reigned  in  Edom  (1  Kgs.  xi.  14-22). 

f  See  Sayce,  The  Races  of  the  Old  I'estament,  p.  41. 

J  The  principle  followed  is  well  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  tribe  of  Sheba, 
which  spread  so  far  from  north  to  south  that  it  is  twice  named,  once  under 
Ham,  and  once  under  Shem  (vers.  7,  28). 


■640  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

It  is  not  only  meant  to  show  the  unity  of  the  race,  in  its  origin,  but 
in  its  hope  for  the  future.  In  the  quest  for  salvation,  so  to  speak, 
those  chosen  for  that  noble  object  take  leave,  for  the  time  being,  of 
those  from  whom  they  must  separate,  as  the  line  of  Seth  of  that  of 
Cain,  the  line  of  Shem  of  that  of  Ham  and  Japheth,  as  the  family 
of  Abraham  of  the  remaining  families  of  the  earth ;  but  it  is  with 
the  evident  hope  and  purpose  of  meeting  again  to  share  the  common 
rewards,  when  the  goal  has  been  reached  and  the  quest  ended. 
"Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  presence  of  mythical  material 
elsewhere  in  Genesis,  I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  suggests  its  pres- 
ence here.  Certainly  it  is  most  unlikely.  Scholars  generally  would 
agree  with  the  statement  of  Eawlinson,  approved  by  Delitzsch,  that 
it  is  "  the  most  authentic  record  we  possess  for  the  affiliations  of 
nations  "  in  the  early  times.*  The  more  fully  it  has  been  examined 
and  understood,  the  more  worthy  it  has  shown  itself  of  trust.  Much 
in  it  that  once  was  regarded  as  doubtful  has  proven  itself,  when 
considered  from  the  right  point  of  view,  to  be  correct. 

Can  we,  within  reasonable  limits,  determine  its  date  ?  The 
data  on  which  reliance  must  chiefly  be  placed  are  these :  the  liter- 
ary form  of  the  material,  and  more  especially  what  it  contains 
and  what  it  omits.  If  we  compare  the  contents  of  the  chapter  with 
the  lists  of  nations  found  in  Jeremiah  (xxv.  19-26)  and  Ezekiel 
(chap,  xxvii  and  xxxiii.  17-30),  it  makes  at  once  the  impression 
of  being  not  only  isolated  but  ancient.  The  peculiar  notice  of 
Nimrod,  the  reference  to  the  early  civilizations  of  Babylon  and 
Assyria,  to  the  cities  of  the  plain  as  though  still  standing,  the  signifi- 
cant break  made  in  the  line  of  Shem  with  Peleg,  and  the  relatively 
small  development  of  the  line  of  Japheth  to  two  generations  only, 
all  point  in  the  same  direction.  The  chapter  contains  nothing  in 
fact  positively  requiring  for  it  a  post-Mosaic  date.f  None  of  the 
peoples  named  are  carried  in  their  development  beyond  the  Exodus 
period  ;  most  of  them  are  left  far  short  of  it.  The  prominence 
given  to  Zidon  (ver.  15)  appears  to  show  that  Tyre,  which  is 
unnamed,  had  not  yet  reached  the  preeminence  it  held  in  David's 
time.  The  recognition  of  Egypt  in  its  two  divisions,  upper  and 
lower,  has  its  parallel  on  the  oldest  monuments  of  that  country.  :j; 
The  omissions  in  the  list  of  peoples,  as  far  as  they  can  be  reasonably 

*Delitzsch,  Com.  uber  die  Genesis,  p.  301. 

t  For  remarks  on  "  Calah  "  (ver.  12)  see  above,  p.  631.  Assurbanipal  says 
<885)  that  Shalmaneser  I  (1300)  had  this  city  "gemacht"  ("epesu,"  '^S'i*; 
Sch.,  VJ3};). 

X  The  title  was  sometimes  applied,  it  is  true,  to  one  division  of  the  country 
alone  (Isa.  xi.  11;  Jer.  xliv.  1,  15).  Strack  {Gom.,  in  loco.)  holds  that  the 
usual  Hebrew  word  for  Egypt  is  not  a  dual. 


ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  GENESIS.  6il 

explained,  are  not  out  of  harmony  with  this  general  conclusion. 
Among  others  the  American,  the  Australian  and  the  Chinese* 
races  are  unnoticed.  Were  they  unknown,  or  had  they  not  yet 
arisen  ?  More  likely  than  the  former  supposition  is  another,  that 
the  writer  purposely  confined  his  view  to  a  limited  area.  At  least, 
as  matter  of  fact,  and  for  some  reason  now  hidden,  he  did  restrict 
himself  to  peoples  grouped  around  the  Mediterranean  basin  and  its 
immediate  vicinity.  If  among  these  we  find  omissions  of  important 
ancient  peoples,  it  will  be  significant.  There  are  some  such.  There 
is  no  reference  to  Arabia,  first  coming  into  notice  in  Solomon's  day 
(1  Kgs.  X.  15),  nor  to  the  Minni  of  Jeremiah's  time  (Jer.  li.  27), 
nor  to  the  great  world  empire  of  Persia  dating  from  the  reign  of 
Cyrus  (B.C.  538).  These  facts  seem  to  make  the  theory  of  an  exilic 
origin  for  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis  impossible. 

But  why  are  such  peoples  as  the  Amalekites  omitted,  together 
with  Edom,  Moab,  Ammon  and  Ishmael,  and  the  descendants  of 
Abraham  by  Keturah,  and  certain  apparently  aboriginal  inhabitants 
of  the  district  around  and  in  Canaan,  the  Anakim,  Eephaim,  Emim 
and  Zamzummim  ?  f  There  is  no  one  reason,  probably,  which  would 
apply  to  all  the  cases.  The  Amalekites  cannot  have  been  omitted 
because  they  had  so  long  before  disappeared  from  history.  The 
finishing  stroke  in  their  destruction  as  a  people  was  given  by  Saul 
(1  Sam.,  chap.  xv).  But  their  very  peculiar  relations  to  Israel  from 
the  period  of  the  Exodus  would  insure  that  their  memory  would  be 
kept  fresh  long  after  this  event  (Ex.  xvii.  16 ;  cf.  1  Chron.  iv.  43).:}: 
As  it  concerns  the  aboriginal  tribes — more  properly,  perhaps,  Amor- 
itish  clans — named,  they  mostly  inhabited  the  region  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan. Their  relative  unimportance  would  well  enough  account  for 
the  failure  to  mention  them.  One  has  remarked  concerning  the 
^^ount  of  matter  contained  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  when 
compared  with  what  it  might  have  been :  "  The  poverty  of  its  lists 
and  of  its  information  is  the  proof  of  its  genuineness."§  And  as  to 
Ishmael,  Edom,  Ammon,  Moab  and  the  rest,  they  are  directly 
related  to  Abraham  by  kinship,  of  whom  the  subsequent  history  is 
to  treat  at  the  appropriate  time  and  place ;  they  receive  all  the  atten- 
tion called  for  in  the  circumstances. 

In  general,  then,  it  may  be  said  that  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis 

*  An  effort  has  been  made  to  connect  the  early  civilization  of  China  with  that 
of  ancient  Akkadia. 

f  If  a  complete  list  of  the  early  inhabitants  of  Canaan  and  vicinity  before  the 
conquest  had  been  aimed  at,  we  should  have  expected  the  names  of  the  Periz- 
zites,  Kenites,  Kenizzites  and  Kadmonites  (x.  16  ;  cf  xv.  19).  See  Sayce's  Races 
of  the  Old  Testament,  chap,  vi,  and  Kohler's  Bib.  Geschichte,  pp.  72-94. 

I  See  Strack,  Com.,  p.  41. 

^Herder  quoted  by  Strack,  ibid.,  in  loco. 
42 


642  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

seems  to  reflect  a  period  previous  to  the  conquest,  not  one  after  it. 
More  definitely,  it  appears  to  point  to  the  time  just  before  the 
Egyptian  supremacy,  described  in  the  tablets  of  Tel  el-Amarna, 
began  to  make  itself  greatly  felt  in  Palestine,  that  is  about  B.C. 
1600.  Previously,  Canaan  had  been  dominated  from  the  north  and 
east ;  and  a  considerable  immigration  had  swept  into  it  through  the 
fords  of  the  Euphrates  at  Carchemish.  * 

Chicago.  EdWIN  Cone  Bissell. 

*  See  Sayce,  ibid.,  who  speaks  of  the  Philistines  (cf.  Gen.  x.  14)  as  a  guard 
established  by  the  Egyptians  on  the  southern  border  of  Palestine  ;  and  cf.  Con- 
der,  "The  Earliest  Ages  of  Hebrew  History,"  in  the  Scottish  Review,  October, 
1894. 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 
Syracuse.  N.  V. 
m.  MN.  It,  ISM 


